NCREASE  OF  POPULATION 

IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

1910-1920 


-y 


INCREASE   OF   POPULATION 

IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

1910-1920 


A  STUDY  OF  CHANGES  IN  THE  POPULATION  OF  DIVISIONS, 

STATES,  COUNTIES,  AND  RURAL  AND  URBAN  AREAS, 

AND  IN  SEX,  COLOR,  AND  NATIVITY,  AT 

THE  FOURTEENTH  CENSUS 


BY 


WILLIAM  S.  ROSSITER 


CENSUS  MONOGRAPHS 
I 


GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

WASHINGTON 

1922 


DEPARTMENT  OF  COMMERCE 

HERBERT  HOOVER,  Secretary 

BUREAU  OF  THE  CENSUS  . 

W.  M.  Steuart,  Director 


EARTH 
SCIENCES 
UBRARy 


NOTE  BY  THE  DIRECTOR  OF  THE  CENSUS. 

The  text  of  the  main  reports  of  the  Fourteenth  Census  is  for  the  most 
part  limited  to  such  explanatory  matter  as  was  deemed  necessary  for  a 
correct  understanding  of  the  statistical  tables.  This  limitation  was  de- 
cided upon  in  order  to  expedite  the  publication  of  the  main  reports  and 
with  a  view  to  the  preparation  of  a  series  of  supplementary  monographs 
analyzing  and  interpreting  some  of  the  more  important  subjects  covered 
by  the  census  inquiries.  While  the  adoption  of  this  policy  marks  a 
departure  from  usual  census  procedure,  it  is  clearly  a  long  step  in  ad- 
vance in  the  effort  to  make  the  decennial  census  of  as  much  practical 
value  to  the  Nation  as  possible.  I  have  pleasure  in  adding  that  the 
decision  of  the  bureau  to  publish  this  series  of  monographs  is  in  line 
with  the  policy  long  urged  by  individuals  and  scientific  organizations 
interested  in  the  widest  use  of  census  returns  and  in  the  highest  effi- 
ciency of  the  bureau. 

The  first  of  this  series  is  submitted  herewith.  To  Mr.  William  S. 
Rossiter,  of  Concord,  N.  H.,  long  an  official  of  this  bureau,  chairman  of 
the  advisory  committee  to  the  Director  of  the  Census  and  president  of 
the  American  Statistical  Association,  was  assigned  the  task  of  preparing 
a  study  of  the  increase  of  population  as  shown  at  the  last  census.  His 
knowledge  of  the  bureau  and  his  previous  work  in  the  field  of  population 
analysis  were  believed  especially  to  qualify  him  for  this  undertaking. 
Having  but  limited  time  available,  Mr.  Rossiter  was  fortunate  in  secur- 
ing the  assistance  of  Mr.  Willard  L.  Thorp,  instructor  in  Social  and  Eco- 
nomic Institutions  at  Amherst  College,  of  whose  untiring  and  invaluable 
assistance  in  preparing  data  and  writing  much  of  the  text  he  desires  me 
to  make  full  and  grateful  acknowledgment. 

Mr.  Rossiter  also  expresses  keen  appreciation  of  the  expert  aid  ren- 
dered by  Mr.  Le Verne  Beales  of  this  bureau,  who  supervised  the  prepara- 
tion of  tables,  edited  manuscript,  and  contributed  sections  here  and  there 
which  have  greatly  aided  in  strengthening  this  narrative  of  population 
change. 

It  is  appropriate  that  the  first  of  this  new  series  of  census  publications 
should  deal  with  population  increase  as  recorded  by  the  historic  decen- 
nial census  of  the  United  States.  Accordingly,  in  the  following  pages 
is  presented  an  orderly  but  not  over-detailed  narrative,  which  it  is 
hoped  will  be  found  to  gather  interest  and  significance  as  it  proceeds, 
of  the  increase  of  the  Nation  from  1910  to  1920,  with  some  analysis  of 
the  changes  which  occurred  during  that  period  in  the  composition  and 
residence  of  the  population. 

3 


858?-2!2 


CONTENTS. 

Pace. 

Introductory  survey 9 

Chapter          I. — An  historic  decade:    1910-1920 15 

Chapter        II. — Growth  of  population  in  the  United  States  before  the  I'our- 

teenth  Census 21 

Chapter      III. — Increase  of  population  in  Nation  and  states 27 

Chapter      IV. — States  which  increased  but  slightly,  or  decreased,  in  popula- 
tion    37 

Chapter        V. — County  increase  or  decrease 6a 

Chapter       VI. — Rtu"al  and  urban  increase  or  decrease 73 

Chapter    VII. — Increase  or  decrease  of  population  considered  by  sex,  nativity, 

and  color S4 

Chapter  VIII. — Native  whites  of  native  parentage 87 

Chapter      IX. — Numerical  importance  of  descendants  of  white  persons  enu- 
merated at  tlie  First  Census 95 

Chapter        X. — Native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage  and  foreign-born 

whites 1 03 

Chapter      XI. — Negro  population 123 

Chapter    XII. — Indians,  Chinese,  and  Japanese 133 

Chapter  XIII. — Influence  upon  population  increase  of  changes  in  age,  marital 

condition,  and  birth  and  death  rates 139 

Chapter    XIV. — Influence  uixtn  population  increase  of  development  of  agri- 
culture, maniifactures,  and  mining 155 

Chapter     XV. — Outlying  possessions,  exclusive  of  Philippines  and  Virgin 

Islands ; 171 

Chapter  XVI. — Summary  and  conclusion 180 

APPENDIXES. 

Appendix  A. — Estimates  of  the  native  white  stock:  1900,  1910,  and  1920 187 

Appendix  B. — Rate  of  natural  increase  in  foreign  white  stock:  1900-1920 197 

Appendix  C. — Estimation  of  net  immigration 199 

Appendix  D. — Fertility  of  native  whites 205 

Appendix  E. — Construction  of  Tables  62,  63,  and  64 207 

Appendix  F. — Computation  of  average  numbers  of  children  per  native  and 

foreign  white  mother 213 

TEXT  TABLES. 
Table    i. — Population  of  the  United  States,  with  decennial  increase:  1790- 

1920 -21 

Table    2. — Growth  of  population  in  area  enumerated  in    1790,  with  growth 

in  remainder  of  continental  United  Stales:  1 790-1920 24 

Table    3. — Increase  of  population,  by  divisions  and  states:  1910-1920 29 

Table    4. — Increase  or  decrease  of  population  in  Maine :  1 790-1920 38 

Table    5. — Ntunber  of  cities,  towns,  and  other  civil  divisions  in  Maine  show- 
ing increase  or  decrease  in  population,  by  coi^ties:  1920 41 

Table    6. — Increase  of  population  in  Delaware:  1790-1920 42 

Table    7. — Increase  or  decrease  of  population  in  New  Hamjjshire :  1790-1920 ...  43 
Table    8. — Towns  and  cities  in  New  Hampshire  classified  by  size,  1920,  and  by 

increase  or  decrease,  1910-1920,  by  counties , 45 

Table    9. — Increase  or  decrease  of  population  in  Vermont:  1 790-1920 48 

5 


6  CONTENTS. 

Page- 

Table  io. — Increase  or  decrease  of  population  in  Nevada:  1860-1920 53 

Table  ir. — Increase  or  decrease  of  population  in  Mississippi:  1800-1920 56 

Table  12. — Increase  or  decrease  of  jK>pulation  in  Iowa:  1840- 1920 59 

Table  13. — Number  of  counties,  number  decreasing  in  population,  and  aggre- 
gate population  of  decreasing  counties,  with  per  cent  of  United 

States  total:  i860,  1880,  1900,  and  1920 63 

Table  14. — Number  and  aggregate  population  of  coimties  or  equivalent  divi- 
sions whose  population  decreased  during  preceding  decade,  for 
the  North  and  West  in  comparison  with  the  South:  i860,  1880, 

1900,  and  1920 65 

Table  15.— Increase  of  rural  and  urban  population:  1900-1920 75 

Table  16. — Summary-  of  urban  communities:  1920 78 

Table  17. — Population  of  cities  having,  in  1920,  250,000  inhabitants  or  more, 

with  increase  and  rank :  1920  and  1910 79 

Table  18. — Growth  of  New  York  City  in  comparison  with  remainder  of  state: 

1900-1920 80 

Table  19. — Growth  of  cities  in  New  York  State  having  over  25,000  inhabitants, 
exclusive  of  New  York  City,  in  comparison  with  smaller  commu- 
nities: 1900-1920 80 

Table  20. — Summary  of  population  in  cities  of  25,000  and  over  in  1920,  and 

population  outside  such  cities:  1920  and  1910 82 

Table  21.— Growth  of  the  white  and  colored  elements  of  the  population:  1790- 

1920 85 

Table  22. — Increase  in  total  white  population  and  in  native  whites  of  native 

parentage:  1860-1920 87 

Table  23. — Increase  of  native  whites  of  native  parentage  in  comparison  with 
increase  in  total  population  in  cities  of  100,000  inhabitants  or 

more :  1900-1920 91 

Table  24. — Native  white  population  of  native  parentage,  distributed  as  urban 

and  rural :  1910  and  1920 92 

Table  25. — Distribution  of  population  and  rate  of  increase  by  race  and  nativity : 

1920  and  1900 100 

Table  26. — Per  cent  distribution  of  foreign-bom  whites  and  native  whites  of 
foreign  or  mixed  parentage,  by  geographic  divisions:  1920  and 

1910 104 

Table  27. — Foreign-bom  white  population  of  the  United  States,  by  country 

of  birth :  1920  and  1910 113 

Table  28. — Immigrants  from  specified  coimtries,  by  decades:  1840-1920 114 

Table  29. — Countries  ranked  according  to  number  contributed  to  foreign-bom 
white  population  of  the  United  States,  as  enumerated  in  specified 

census  year:  1920,  1910,  and  1900 117 

Table  30. — Number  of  white  Canadians,  other  than  French,  by  geographic 

divisions:  1920  and  1910 119 

Table  31. — Dominant  nationalities  among  foreign-bom  whites  in  cities  having, 

in  1920,  over  250,000  inhabitants:  1920  and  1910 121 

Table  32. — Negro  population  and  increase  in  Negro  population  of  cities  hav- 
ing, in  1920,  more  than  25,000  Negro  inhabitants:  1920,  1910, 

and  1900 128 

Table  33. — Indian  population,  by  divisions  and  states:  1920,  1910,  and  1900.  .  134 
Table  34. — Chinese  population,  by  divisions  and  states:  1920,  1910,  and  1900.  .  136 
Table  35. — Japanese  pojjulation,  by  divisions  and  states:  1920,  1910,  and  1900.  137 
Table  36. — Proportions  of  children  under  15  years  of  age  and  of  persons  45  years 

of  age  and  over  in  the  total  population:  1920,  19 10,  and  1900.  .  .  .        141 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

Table  37. — Summary  of  the  marital  condition  of  the  population  of  the  United 

States:  1920  and  1910 146 

Table  38. — Per  cent  married  in  total  number  of  males  and  females  at  specified 

ages:  1920  and  1910 148 

Table  39. — Increase  in  total  population  of  the  United  States,  by  decades, 
1790-1920,  with  estimated  increase  which  would  have  occurred 
diu-ing  each  decade  had  there  been  no  immigration  nor  emigration 
in  that  decade,  1820-1920 152 

Table  40. — Comparison  of  agriculture  with  manufactures  and  production  of 
minerals  on  basis  of^  number  of  persons  engaged  and  value-prod- 
uct, by  geographic  divisions:  1919 156 

Table  41. — Per  capita  value  of    products:  Agriculture,   manufactiu'es,    and 

mining:  1919 157 

Table  42. — Urbanization  of  population  in  comparison  with  industrial  devel- 
opment, by  geographic  divisions:  1920,  1910,  and  1850 160 

Table  43. — Increase  in  population  in  comparison  with  increase  in  industrial 

activity,  by  geographic  divisions:  1910-1920 168 

Table  44. — Racial  composition  of  the  population  of  Alaska:  1920  and  1910. . . .       172 

Table  45. — Population  of  Hawaii,  by  race,  with  per  cent  of  increase:  1920  and 

1910 174 

Table  46. — Population  of  Porto  Rico,  by  color  or  race  and  nativity:  1920  and 

1910 177 

Table  47. — Population  of  Guam,  by  color  or  race:  1920 177 

Table  48. — Population  of  American  Samoa,  by  race:  1920 178 

Table  49. — Population  of  Panama  Canal  Zone,  by  color  or  race  and  nativity: 

1920 179 

DETAILED  TABLES. 

Table  50. — Number  and  aggregate  population  of  counties  or  equivalent  divi- 
sions whose  population  decreased  during  preceding  decade,  by 
divisions  and  states:  1920,  1900,  1880,  and  i860 2 16 

Table  51. — Urban  population,  classified  in  three  groups,  according  to  size  of 

cities,  1920,  with  per  cent  of  increase,  1910-1920 220 

Table  52. — Population  in  cities  having  25,000  inhabitants  or  more  in  1920, 
and  outside  such  cities,  with  increase  or  decrease,  by  divisions 
and  states:  1920  and  1910 223 

Table  53. — Increase  in  population,  by  color,  nativity,  and  parentage,  by  divi- 
sions and  states:  1910-1920 224 

Table  54. — Urban  and  rtu-al  population,  by  color  and  nativity,  for  divisions 

and  states:  1920  and  1910 226 

Table  55. — Native  whites  of  native  parentage  in  total,  urban,  and  rural  popu- 
lation, by  divisions  and  states:  1920  and  1910 234 

Table  56. — Proportion  native  white  of  native  parentage  in  population  of  cities 

having,  in  1920,  100,000  inhabitants  or  more:  1920  and  1910.  .  .       240 

Table  57. — Per  cent  of  increase  by  nativity  and  according  to  whether  bom  in 
division  or  state  of  residence,  1910-1920,  and  per  cent  distribu- 
tion by  age  and  marital  condition,  1920 241 

Table  58. — Distribution  of  total  population  by  nativity  and  of  native  popu- 
lation according  to  whether  bom  in  division  or  state  of  residence : 
1920  and  1910 242 

Table  59. — Distribution  of  population  according  to  color,  nativity,  and 
whether  bom  in  state  of  residence,  with  ratio  of  increase  in  each 
class  to  total  increase,  for  selected  states:  1920  and  1910 244 


CONTENTS 


Pace- 

Table  6o. — Per  cent  of  increase  according  to  color,  nativity-,  and  whether 
bom  in  state  of  residence,  1910-1920,  and  per  cent  distribution 
of  whites  and  Negroes  by  age  and  marital  condition,  1920,  for 

selected  states 246 

Table  61. — Proportions  of  children  under  15  years  of  age  and  of  persons45  years 
of  age  and  over  in  total  population,  by  divisions  and  states: 

1920,  1910,  and  1900 247 

Table  62. — Number  of  persons  engaged  and  value  produced  or  added,  for 
agriculture  in  comparison  with  manufactures  and  production  of 

minerals,  by  divisions  and  states:  1919 248 

Table  63. — Urbanization  of  population  in  comparison  with  industrial  develop- 
ment, by  divisions,  1920,  1910,  and  1850,  and  by  states,  1920 

and  1910 249 

Table  64. — Increase  in  population  in  comparison  with  increase  in  industrial 

activity:  1910-1920 253 

Table  65. — Areas  other  than  states  enumerated  at  each  census:  1 790-1920 254 

Table  66. — Elements  of  population  estimated  by  different  methods:  1900  and 

1920 25s 

Table  67. — Years  of  admission  of  states  to  Union 255 

MAPS  AND  DIAGRAMS. 

Comparison  of  rate  of  increase  in  total  population  with  rate  of  change  of  immi- 
gration: 1850-1920 23 

Growth  of  population  in  area  enumerated  in  1790 25 

Rate  of  population  increase  in  the  United  States,  by  divisions:  1900-1920.. .  30 

Rate  of  increase  or  decrease  in  total  population,  by  states:  1910-1920 32 

States  which  increased  slightly  in  population,  or  decreased:  1910-1920 33 

Maine — Increase  or  decrease  in  population  of  counties:  1900-1920 39 

Maine — Towns  showing  decrease:  1910-1920 40 

Delaware — Increase  or  decrease  in  population  of  counties:  1900-1920 ^2 

New  Hampshire — Increase  or  decrease  in  population  of  counties:  1900-1920. .  .  44 

New  Hampshire — Towns  showing  decrease:  1910-1920 47 

Vermont — Increase  or  decrease  in  population  of  counties:  1 900-1920 49 

Vermont — Towns  showing  decrease:  1910-1920 51 

Nevada — Increase  or  decrease  in  population  of  coimties:  1 900-1920 54 

Mississippi — Increase  or  decrease  in  population  of  counties:  1900-1920 :;8 

Iowa— Increase  or  decrease  in  population  of  counties:  1900-1920 60 

Missoiu"! — Increase  or  decrease  in  population  of  counties:  1900-1920 67 

Counties  in  which  population  decreased:  1880  -1920 70 

Counties  in  which  population  decreased:  1910-1920 71 

Urban  and  rural  population :  1890-1920 73 

Increase  in  luban  population,  by  classes  of  cities:  1890-1920 78 

Color  or  race,  nativity',  and  parentage,  by  divisions:  1920,  1910,  and  1900 S6 

States  showing  increase  in  foreign-bom  white:  1910-1920 icg 

Foreign-lx)m  population,  by  principal  countries  of  birth:  1920  and  1910 117 

States  in  which  increase  in  Negro  population  was  more  than  1,000  and  was  at 

a  higher  rate  than  increase  in  total  population:  1910-1920 126 

Distribution  of  population  by  age  periods:  1890-1920 140 

Value  of  agricultural  products,  l;y  states:  1919 158 

Value  of  mimufactured  products,  by  states:  1919 159 

States  which  produced  3  per  cent  or  more  of  total  value  of  manufactured  or 

agricultural  products  rcjjurted  for  the  United  States:  ioiq 1(1 

Per  cent  of  increase  in  population,  1910-1920,  and  in  manufactures,  1909-1919.  .  1O9 

Per  cent  of  increase  in  population  and  agriculture :  1910-1920 169 


INTRODUCTORY  SURVEY. 

Four  quarto  volumes  comprise  the  tabular  presentation  of  the 
detailed  returns  of  population  at  the  Fourteenth  Census  of  the 
United  States.  Within  these  volumes  can  be  found  all  facts 
usually  collected  by  the  Government  as  a  statistical  record  of  the 
people.  They  form  the  basis  for  reaching  decisions  in  innumerable 
official  and  private  transactions,  but  for  the  average  citizen,  who 
in  the  end  bears  the  responsibility  and  expense  of  the  enterprise, 
they  possess  little  real  interest. 

Although  the  census  volumes  are  available  to  all  and  are  to  be 
found  in  the  principal  libraries,  the  size  and  tabular  character  of 
the  volumes  deter  the  ordinary  inquirer  from  attempts  to  learn 
the  significance  of  census  returns.  In  consequence,  the  popula- 
tion census,  decade  after  decade,  has  been  of  interest  principally 
to  students  of  statistics,  political  economy,  and  government.  The 
full  public  usefulness  of  these  tabular  records  is  seldom  realized 
by  Nation,  state,  or  community,  because  much  of  the  significance 
of  the  returns  is  not  properly  brought  out  by  consistent  and  ade- 
quate analysis.  Heated  controversies,  indeed,  have  arisen  and 
writers  have  been  subjected  to  criticism  merely  because  accurate 
interpretation  of  census  figures  led  to  public  knowledge  of  un- 
pleasant civic  truths. 

An  attempt  is  here  made  to  present  a  statistical  picture  of 
national  progress.  Anyone  M^ho  desires  to  read  the  history  of  the 
United  States  in  terms  of  changing  numbers,  racial  strains,  and 
places  of  residence,  during  a  decade  crowded  with  epoch-making 
events,  may  do  so  in  these  pages.  It  is  especially  the  hope  of  the 
Director  of  the  Census  and  of  the  author  that  this  narrative,  though 
deaUng  solely  with  the  results  of  the  census  returns,  will  be  so 
illuminated  by  the  vast  national  changes  which  the  census  records 
that  the  element  of  human  interest  will  be  ever  present.  Beyond 
all  interest  to  individuals,  however,  is  the  possibility  that  clear 
presentation  of  the  facts  of  population  change  may  be  of  real  help 
to  some  of  the  states  or  smaller  subdivisions  of  the  Union,  where 
local  problems  of  increase  or  decrease  of  inhabitants  or  change  in 
race  proportions  may  have  become  imsettling  influences.  Upon 
such  matters  it  is  generally  the  case  that  the  Federal  census  alone 
offers  authoritative  information. 

9 


10  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

The  purpose  of  this  monograph  is  primarily  to  describe  the 
location  and  the  group  characteristics  of  the  men,  women,  and 
children  who  composed  the  increase  which  took  place  from  1910 
to  1920  in  the  population  of  the  United  States.  This  increase 
was  13,738,354  and  represented  the  excess  of  inhabitants  in 
the  Nation  enumerated  by  the  Fourteenth  Census,  1920,  over  the 
number  enumerated  at  the  Thirteenth  Census,  19 10.  Clearly 
enough,  these  persons  were  not  in  existence  or  not  in  the  United 
States  April  15,  1910,  the  enumeration  date  of  the  Thirteenth 
Census.  This  increment,  however,  represented  but  approximately 
one-half  of  the  actual  change  which  took  place  in  the  American 
people.  The  population  of  the  United  States  at  the  Thirteenth 
Census  was  91,972,266.  How  many  of  these  persons  were  again 
enumerated  at  the  Fourteenth  Census,  1920?  The  answer  to  this 
question  proves  exceedingly  interesting,  since  "increase  of  popu- 
lation" is  commonly  considered  to  represent  merely  the  excess 
shown  at  a  given  enumeration  over  the  last  preceding  enumeration. 

Between  the  taking  of  the  Thirteenth  Census  and  that  of  the 
Fourteenth,  a  scant  10  years  (April  15,  19 10,  to  January  i,  1920) 
elapsed.  During  that  period  the  estimated  number  of  deaths  of 
persons  enumerated  in  19 10  was  11,240,000,^  hence  the  survivors 
of  the  Thirteenth  Census  available  for  enumeration  at  the  Four- 
teenth Census,  if  in  the  United  States,  numbered  only  80,730,000 
on  January  i,  1920.  Not  all  these  persons,  however,  were  in  this 
country  on  that  date. 

The  decade  was  unusual  for  the  great  number  of  departures 
of  aliens  and  foreign-bom  and  native-bom  citizens  to  take  part 
in  the  World  War  or  to  participate  in  hospital  or  other  activities 
connected  with  it.  The  number  of  survivors,  in  1920,  of  the  emi- 
grants who  left  the  United  States  between  1910  and  1920  has  been 
estimated  at  2,280,000.^  Hence,  the  survivors  in  this  country  of 
the  Thirteenth  Census,  as  previously  specified,  were  further  reduced 

'  Davis  and  Foudray,  U.  S.  Census  Bureau,  1922.  This  estimate  was  made  from 
United  States  Life  Tables,  1910,  for  both  sexes  and  all  races  (p.  16),  and  the  annual 
mortality  rates  for  the  death-registration  area  (Mortality  Statistics,  1919,  p.  9). 

^  Emigration  of  aliens,  April  15,  1910,  to  December  31,  1919,  2,070,000;  emigration 
of  citizens,  July  i,  1917,  to  December  31,  1919,  130,000  (not  recorded  prior  to  July  i, 
1917);  excess  of  citizens  departing  (including  nonemigrants)  over  citizens  arriving 
(assumed  to  represent  returning  nonemigrants),  April  15,  1910,  to  Jmie  30,  1917, 
240,000;  estimated  total  emigration,  2,440,000;  estimated  mortality  to  January  i,  1920 
(included  in  total  mortalit>',  11,240,000,  among  persons  enumerated  in  1910),  160,000; 
estimated  survivors  January  i,  1920,  of  emigrants  diiring  decade,  2,280,000. 


INTRODUCTORY  SURVEY.  U 

by  that  number,  leaving  78,450,000.^  Therefore,  instead  of  there 
being  some  90,000,000  persons  to  enumerate  again,  together  with 
the  normal  decennial  increase,  as  might  be  supposed,  the  number 
of  persons  to  be  counted  at  the  Fourteenth  Census  who  had  been 
counted  before  at  least  once  did  not  greatly  exceed  the  population 
enumerated  20  years  before,  76,000,000. 

It  remained  for  the  Nation,  when  the  count  was  made  in  1920, 
to  have  made  good  by  births  and  by  immigration,  first,  the  shrink- 
age noted  from  the  population  returned  at  the  previous  census, 
and  second,  having  replaced  the  losses,  to  supply  additional 
numbers  to  represent  a  normal  increase  over  the  total  shown  10 
years  before. 

This  replacement  and  increase  were  accomplished  about  as 
follows : 

Natives  under  5  years  of  age,  1920 11,528,000 

Natives  from  5  to  9  years  of  age,  inclusive,  1920 11,228, 000 

Total  natives  under  10  years  of  age 22,  756, 000 

Survivors  of  natives  bom  between  January  i  and  April  15, 

1910 630,  000 

Surviving  natives  bom  since  April  15,  1910 22,  126,  000 

Surviving  immigrants^ 5,345,000 

Total  additions  (stated  as  a  multiple  of  10,000) 27, 470, 000 

Survivors  of  the  Thirteenth  Census 78,450,000 

Estimated  population,  1920 105, 920,  coo 

The  close  similarity  between  the  total  thus  estimated  and  the 
number  actually  enumerated  at  the  Fourteenth  Census  (105,710,- 
620)  constitutes  credible  evidence  of  the  substantial  complete- 
ness of  the  Foiuteenth  Census  enumeration.  Moreover,  it  is  pos- 
sible, or  even  probable,  that  the  difference  of  only  210,000,  or  one- 
fifth  of  I  per  cent,  between  the  total  as  estimated  and  as  enu- 
merated is  due  in  large  part  to  an  error  in  the  estimated  mortality. 

'  The  actual  number  of  Thirteenth  Census  survivors  in  this  coimtry  was  somewhat 
larger,  for  the  reason  that  the  2,280,000  survivors  of  the  emigrants  diu-ing  the  decade 
1910-1920  included  an  indeterminate  number  of  persons  who  had  immigrated  to  this 
countrj'  within  the  same  decade.  The  error  resulting  from  tlie  assumption  that  all 
the  emigrants  during  the  decade  were  persons  who  had  been  enumerated  in  19 lo  is, 
however,  offset  by  the  assumption  that  all  the  survivors  of  the  immigrants  during 
the  same  decade  were  in  the  United  States  in  1920. 

2  Total  immigration,  April  15,  1910,  to  December  31,  1919,  5,775,000;  estimated 
mortality  between  arrival  in  the  United  States  and  December  31,  1919,  430,000;  siu"- 
vivors,  5,345,000. 


12  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

It  is  clear  that  vast  changes  in  the  composition  and  distribution 
of  the  population  of  the  United  States  must  have  occurred  in  this 
brief  period  of  lo  years,  involving  the  reclassification  of  a  much 
larger  number  of  persons  than  the  13,700,000  representing  the 
net  increase  of  population  at  the  Fourteenth  Census. 

By  the  act  of  Congress  providing  for  the  taking  of  the  Thirteenth 
Census  of  the  United  States  (1910)  the  date  of  enumeration  was 
set  as  of  April  15.  This  act  broke  the  long-estabHshed  precedent 
of  taking  the  census  as  of  June  i  of  the  census  year.  It  also 
made  impossible  the  comparison  of  exact  decennial  periods. 
The  Thirteenth  Census,  in  consequence  of  this  change,  fell  one 
and  one-half  months  short  of  covering  a  full  decade.  As  the 
Fourteenth  Census  approached,  the  law  providing  for  it  again 
involved  a  change,  setting  January  i  of  the  census  year  as  the 
date  of  enumeration.  Thus  another  decade  was  "short,"  this 
time  three  and  a  half  months  less  than  a  full  decade,  while  the 
enumeration  fell  five  months  less  than  20  years  after  the  Twelfth 
Census. 

In  all  of  the  computations  employed  in  this  monograph  it  has 
been  impossible  to  take  these  fractional  shortages  into  account. 
Since  the  labor  involved  would  have  been  prohibitive,  the  two 
periods  specified  have  in  general  been  accepted  as  full  decades, 
and  all  calculations  have  been  made  on  that  basis. 

Nevertheless,  these  shortages  are  of  some  consequence  statis- 
tically. In  delicate  computations,  the  differences  involved  might 
prove  important.  If  the  Thirteenth  Census  had  been  taken  June 
I,  1910,  instead  of  April  15,  1910,  and  a  full  decade  covered,  the 
result  would  have  been  approximately  as  follows: 

Estimated  population  June  i,  1910 92,149,155 

Actual  population  June  i,  1900 75-994.575 

Estimated  lo-year  increase 16,154,580 

Increase  during  official  census  period 15,  977-  691 

Difference , 176,889 

Estimated  10-year  per  cent  of  increase 21.3 

Official  per  cent  of  increase 21.0 

There  is  a  difference,  for  the  short  period  of  45  days,  of  177,000, 
or  three-tenths  of  1  per  cent.     If  a  corresponding  estimate  be  maile 


INTRODUCTORY  SURVE;Y.         ,  ;  ; '  'i ,  1' ! '.'.  ; ''  •  '  fs' 

to  cover  a  full  decade  from  the  census  of  1910  to  that  of   1920, 
the  following  result  appears: 

Estimated  population  April  15,  1920 106, 123,3.60 

Actual  population  April  15,  1910 91,972,266 

Estimated  10-year  increase 14,  151,  094 

Increase  during  official  census  period 13,  738,  354 

Difference 412 ,  740 

Estimated  10-year  per  cent  of  increase 15.  4 

Official  per  cent  of  increase 14-  9 

For  the  shortage  of  tliree  and  a  half  months  here  involved,  a 
marked  difference  appears  of  over  400,000,  or  five-tenths  of  i  per 
cent.  If,  however,  these  changes  prove  in  the  end  to  be  of  service 
in  leading  to  the  permanent  adoption  of  the  best  date  for  census 
taking,  the  temporary  inaccuracies  here  noted  will  be  of  little 
consequence. 

To  analyze  the  growth  of  population  from  19 10  to  1920  most 
effectively,  it  is  advisable,  first,  to  sketch  the  economic  back- 
ground ,  describing  very  briefly  the  changes  and  the  forces  at  work 
from  1 9 10  to  1920  which  might  influence  population  increase  as 
recorded  at  the  Fourteenth  Census,  and  second,  to  summarize 
concisely  the  results  of  previous  censuses  and  the  changing  rates 
of  national  growth.  With  the  economic  condition  of  the  nation 
and  the  facts  of  previous  population  change  clearly  before  the 
reader,  it  is  then  possible  to  sketch  the  increase  or  decrease  recorded 
in  1920  of  the  nation  as  a  whole  and  of  its  geographic  divisions, 
states,  and  smaller  subdivisions,  and  then  to  analyze  the  population 
by  its  racial  elements,  with  continual  references  to  the  more  vital 
and  significant  changes  and  tendencies  of  the  decade.  Discussion 
of  actual  increase  or  decrease  and  accompanying  changes  naturally 
ends  here,  but  no  study  of  this  character  would  be  complete  for 
1920  without  some  reference,  more  or  less  detailed,  to  the  influence 
upon  population  of  changes  in  the  family,  in  marriage,  birth,  and 
death  rates,  and  also  in  manufactures  and  agriculture  during  a 
decade  when  they  exerted  unwonted  influence  upon  population. 

William  S.  R-ossiter. 


I. 

AN  HISTORIC  DECADE 
1910-1920. 

The  Fourteenth  Census  of  the  United  States  was  taken  at  the 
close  of  a  decade  which  future  historians  are  likely  to  regard  as 
of  far-reaching  importance  in  the  life  of  the  Nation. 

The  early  part  of  this  lo-year  period  witnessed  important  but 
peacefid  economic  changes,  most  of  which  were  the  result  of  con- 
tinuing national  development.  In  the  summer  of  1914  the  sudden 
outbreak  of  the  great  war  in  Europe  began  at  once  to  affect  the 
nations  not  involved,  especially  the  United  States.  As  the  decade 
advanced,  nation  after  nation  entered  the  conflict,  still  further  in- 
fluencing the  economic  condition  of  the  United  States,  imtil  this 
country  in  turn  concentrated  all  its  vast  available  resources,  human 
and  material,  upon  the  task  of  winning  the  war. 

So  great  had  been  the  effort  to  organize  and  dispatch  abroad 
huge  armies,  and  to  concentrate  man  power  arbitrarily  at  certain 
points  upon  the  production  of  supplies  and  means  of  transporta- 
tion, that  by  January  i,  1920,  a  year  after  the  armistice,  the  read- 
justments necessary  to  restore  the  Nation  to  normal  conditions 
were  far  from  completed.  It  is,  indeed,  to  be  doubted  whether 
those  population  tendencies  which  were  in  evidence  as  the  decade 
opened  and  which  were  rudely  disturbed  a  few  years  later  by 
exciting  world  events  will  ever  be  fully  resumed. 

Before  considering  actual  changes  in  the  population  and  in  its 
racial  and  geographic  distribution  which  occurred  in  this  lo-year 
period,  it  is  necessary  to  an  unusual  degree  to  have  clearly  in  mind 
as  a  general  background  some  of  the  principal  economic  changes 
which  occurred  during  the  decade,  many  of  which  directly  affected 
the  increase  or  decrease  of  population. 

Two  composite  views  of  the  United  States,  one  a  picture  of  the 
Nation  in  19 10,  the  other  a  picture  taken  in  1920,  would  show 
extraordinary  differences — differences  far  greater  than  similar 
composites  at  other  and  corresponding  periods,  except  perhaps  in 
i860  and  1870.  Comparison  of  social  and  economic  conditions  at 
the  beginning  of  the  decade  with  those  at  the  end  would  surely 
reveal  surprising  differences.  A  normal  development  was  to  have 
been  expected,  but  beyond  this  normal  rate  of  expansion  an  external 
force,  the  World  War,  entered  into  the  situation,  revolutionizing 

15 


t6' 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


and  reorganizing  industrial  and  social  life  and  making  the  decade 
one  full  of  abnormal  changes. 

Thus  an  orderly  analysis  of  the  growth  of  population  in  the 
United  States  from  1910  to  1920  proves  of  especial  interest  and 
importance,  since  in  addition  to  those  facts  connected  with 
increase  or  decrease  which  a  census  always  records,  the  returns  of 
the  Fourteenth  Census  reflect  many  of  the  population  changes 
produced  by  the  war. 

No  period  of  serious  business  depression  occurred  during  the 
entire  decade.  By  1 910  the  coimtry  had  quite  recovered  from  the 
severe  effects  of  the  depression  of  1907,  and  business  continued 
fairly  steady  and  undisturbed  until  the  depression  of  early  191 4. 
This  depression  was  intensified  by  the  outbreak  of  the  World  War, 
but  from  the  middle  of  1915  the  demand  for  agricultural  and  man- 
ufactured products  which  grew  out  of  the  war  sent  the  industries 
of  the  Nation  by  1916  to  entirely  new  levels.  Extreme  activity 
and  somewhat  artificial  prosperity  continued  until  the  end  of  the 
decade.  This  period  was  interrupted  in  the  beginning  of  191 9  by 
a  decided  slowing  up  of  business  immediately  after  the  signing  of 
the  armistice,  but  the  downward  mov^ement  was  soon  checked,  and 
the  year  1920  began  with  a  favorable  outlook.  The  decade,  there- 
fore, from  the  standpoint  of  business,  was  an  unusual  one.  That 
there  would  have  been  marked  expansion,  even  without  the  war,  is 
probably  true.  Markets  were  being  extended  in  foreign  countries, 
natural  resoiu-ces  were  being  opened  up,  new  sources  of  power  dis- 
covered, new  methods  of  production  introduced,  and  scientific 
management  and  efficiency  engineering  were  becoming  factors  in 
business  organization.  Capital  equipment  had  greatly  increased, 
and  the  development  ot  electric  railways,  the  automobile,  tele- 
phone, wireless,  and  parcel  post  made  the  decade  exceptional; 
while  the  creation  of  the  Federal  Reserve  and  Federal  Farm  Loan 
Systems  facilitated  industrial  and  agricultural  development. 

With  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  a  demand  arose  for  manufac- 
tured products  such  as  the  country  never  before  had  been  called 
upon  to  meet.     An  average*  of  index  numbers  of  volume  of  pro- 


>  The  arithmetical  arerage  of  four  Index  Numbers  of  Physical  Volume  of  Produc- 
tion is  as  follows: 


1910. 

1918. 


E.  E.  Day. 


93 
"3 


W.W. 

Stewart. 


95 
134 


Carl 
Snyder. 


91 
139 


W.  I.  King. 


89 
"3 


Averaec. 


9' 

I30 


AN  HISTORIC  DECADE.  17 


duction  stands  at  92  for  19 10  and  120  for  191 8,  an  increase  of 
over  30  per  cent.  These  figures  indicate  the  physical  volume  of 
products  quite  apart  from  their  value.  This  exceptional  develop- 
ment, from  its  ver}^  nature,  must  not  only  have  affected  the  growth 
of  population  but  also  have  caused  some  redistribution  within 
the  country. 

The  war  also  changed  the  relative  importance  of  various  indus- 
tries. Many  readjustments  were  necessary,  based  on  a  "war" 
scale  of  values,  since  production  for  military  needs  bears  little 
relation  to  production  for  normal  requirements.  Moreover,  com- 
modities which  had  been  in  limited  demand  were  suddenly 
required  in  large  quantities.  Many  other  industries  were  indi- 
rectly, but  greatly,  stimulated.  Some,  indeed,  were  actually 
created,  such  as  the  manufacture  of  certain  chemicals  and  dyes. 

Mining  operations,  especially  those  relating  to  copper,  zinc, 
and  lead,  were  expanded  to  their  utmost  capacity,  drawing  many 
thousands  of  people  to  areas  hitherto  sparsely  settled.  These 
changes  resulted  in  considerable  redistribution  of  population. 
Cities  doubled  in  size,  and  entirely  new  towns  sprang  up  to  accom- 
modate workers  in  shipbuilding  and  other  plants.  A  Federal 
Housing  Corporation  was  organized  which  constructed  towns  at 
short  notice.  Great  numbers  of  Negroes  migrated  from  their 
homes  in  the  South  to  industrial  cities  of  the  North  in  response 
to  the  insistent  demand  for  unskilled  labor. 

Although  it  is  true  that,  in  the  main,  the  industries  so  magnified 
had  begun  by  1920  to  swing  back  toward  prewar  conditions,  yet 
when  the  census  was  taken  the  effect  of  this  tremendous  readjust- 
ment was  still  visible. 

Certain  industries  in  early  stages  of  development  in  19 10  grew 
abnormally  during  the  decade.  Doubtless  they  would  have 
grown  to  large  production  had  the  period  been  entirely  peaceful, 
but  the  war  added  artificial  stimulus.  The  number  of  telephones 
in  tlie  country  more  than  doubled.  The  motion- picture  industry 
grew  to  surprising  importance.  The  production  of  automobiles 
jumped  over  1,200  per  cent  in  10  years.  To  the  motor  industry 
almost  exclusively  can  be  attributed  the  achievement  of  the  city 
of  Detroit  in  more  than  doubling  its  population,  reaching  prac- 
tically a  million  inhabitants,  and  the  great  increase  during  the 
decade  in  the  number  of  persons  gainfully  employed  in  the  entire 
state  of  Michigan. 
107°— 22 2 


18  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

Although  the  automobile,  by  reducing  the  isolation  of  rural 
life,  made  the  farm  more  attractive,  there  is  no  clear  evidence 
that  it  retarded  the  movement  from  country  to  city.  It  is 
equally  significant  that  the  motor  truck  and  farm  tractor  reduced 
the  amount  of  labor  and  time  necessar}'^  for  the  cultivation  of 
farms  and  thereby  made  it  possible  for  the  number  of  persons 
engaged  in  agriculture  to  be  reduced  without  material  change  in 
crop  production. 

Agriculture  during  this  period,  however,  was  subject  to  many 
forces  other  than  the  introduction  of  the  automobile  and  tractor. 
The  development  and  application  of  scientific  methods,  the  exten- 
sion of  Government  projects  of  irrigation  and  homesteading,  the 
creation  of  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  System,  and  the  technical 
developments  of  the  period,  all  made  greater  crop  production  a 
possibility.  But  far  beyond  these  in  its  influence  was  the  abnor- 
mal demand  for  agricultural  products,  due  to  the  eUmination  by 
the  war  of  certain  European  agricultural  areas  as  sources  of 
supply.  The  "war  garden"  movement  in  the  cities  was  sympto- 
matic of  the  movement  for  greater  production  which  appeared 
everywhere  in  the  United  States. 

Powerful  forces  were  at  work  during  the  decade  for  the  develop- 
ment of  cities.  The  war  called  insistently  for  a  greater  variety  and 
larger  volume  of  products.  This  greater  volume  of  output  could 
be  obtained  either  by  more  rapid  work  and  longer  working  days  by 
those  already  employed  or  by  an  increase  in  the  number  employed. 
Industrial  establishments  were  located  principally  in  cities,  and  so 
cities  everywhere  offered  work  to  all  at  high  wages  and  under 
improved  working  conditions.  An  increased  number  of  workers, 
in  turn,  required  more  people  to  ser\'e  them. 

Changes  in  population  during  the  decade,  however,  were  by  no 
means  confined  to  those  arising  from  agriculture  and  other  lines  of 
industry;  immigration  and  emigration,  as  well  as  internal  migra- 
tion, were  important  factors.  These  also  were  greatly  influenced 
by  the  war  or  were  the  direct  result  of  it.  Immigrants  entering 
the  country  during  the  first  five  years  of  the  decade  averaged  about 
900,000  per  aimum;  during  the  last  five  years,  1915-1919,  they 
averaged  only  a  quarter  of  a  million  per  annum,  less  than  one- 
third  as  many.  This  sudden  check  in  the  number  of  immigrants 
affected  definitely  the  population  increase  for  the  decade ;  in  fact, 
it  was  one  of  the  largest  factors  limiting  population  growth. 


AN  HISTORIC  DECADE.  19 

Emigration  in  the  decade  from  1910  to  1920  had  a  considerable 
effect  on  population.  At  the  call  of  their  native  countries,  large 
numbers  of  the  foreign  bom  left  the  United  States.  These  men 
were  principal!)^  residents  of  eastern  cities.  The  influence  of  this 
factor  is  clearly  seen  in  the  reduced  percentages  of  increase  for 
most  cities  in  spite  of  the  great  influx  of  the  rural  element. 

Over  4,000,000  men,  most  of  whom  were  withdrawn  from  agri- 
cultiu-e  and  other  industries,  entered  the  military  and  naval 
services  in  191 7  and  191 8.  These  men  were  taken  for  a  consider- 
able period  from  their  homes  and  plunged  into  an  entirely  new 
enwonment.  Out  of  an  approximate  total  of  4,000,000  men 
under  arms,  more  than  2,000,000  were  transported  to  Europe. 
A  large  number  never  returned.  The  extent  to  which  this  phase 
of  the  war  reduced  the  birth  rate  and  caused  permanent  change 
of  residence  is  not  yet  fully  apparent. 

The  increased  demand  for  labor,  arising  from  the  expansion  of 
industr}',  while  at  the  same  time  the  available  supply  of  labor  was 
reduced,  afforded  opportunity  for  many  women  to  become  wage 
earners  under  exceptionally  favorable  conditions.  Old  prejudices 
against  women's  capacity  as  industrial  workers  abated.  The 
importance  of  this  change  is  not  yet  evident,  but  such  increasing 
activity  on  the  part  of  women  in  industr}'  must  effect  definite 
results  in  family  life,  and  thereby  influence  future  population 
changes. 

To  those  who  l^elieve  that  conditions  of  living  and  working  are 
factors  affecting  population  growth,  the  decade  offered  a  number 
of  interesting  developments,  namely:  The  Federal  child -labor 
law;  the  general  decrease  in  the  length  of  the  working  day;  the 
movement  toward  safety  and  accident  prevention;  the  develop- 
ment of  community  and  welfare  work;  the  attempts  to  meet  the 
housing  problem  in  systematic  fashion;  and  finally  a  period  of 
unusually  general  employment,  high  wages,  and  business  activity. 

Until  1900  the  flow  of  population  was  mainly  westward.  From 
that  census  it  appeared  that  the  current  had  slackened,  and 
changes  of  population  became  more  dependent  upon  isolated 
developments  in  different  sections  of  the  countn,-,  such  as  irriga- 
tion, the  settlement  of  Oklahoma,  orcharding  in  the  far  North- 
west, and  the  mining  and  oil  discoveries  of  the  vSouthwest,  The 
Central  states  and  the  South  grew  in  industrial  importance.  The 
eddies  and  currents  of  population  tended  increasingl}''  to  follow 
changing  industrial  development.     This  naturally  led  to  an  ac- 


20  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


celerated  increase  in  urban  population.  It  remained  for  the 
decade  rnider  consideration  to  record  an  aggregate  population  in 
the  68  cities  of  100,000  inhabitants  and  over,  so  great  that  they 
comprised  more  than  one-quarter  of  the  entire  population  of  the 
United  States.  This  tendency  has,  as  suggested,  kept  pace  with 
the  industrial  development — in  fact,  has  been  guided  largely  by 
it.  But  the  tendency  of  the  American  people  to  concentrate  in 
cities  was  stimulated  b}'  the  war,  and  economically  is  probably 
the  most  important  development  indicated  by  the  Fourteenth 
Census. 


II. 

GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 
BEFORE  THE  FOURTEENTH  CENSUS. 

The  population  of  the  United  States  in  1920  was  27  times  as 
great  as  that  returned  at  the  First  Census,  130  years  before. 
This  record  of  remarkable  increase  has  been  discussed  fully  in 
census  reports  and  by  many  statisticians  and  others  interested 
in  the  growth  of  the  Nation.  Some  reference,  however,  to  past 
rates  of  growth  is  essential  in  order  to  make  possible  an  intelligent 
consideration  of  the  rate  of  increase  between  19 10  and  1920. 

Tabi,e  I. — Population  of  thb  United  States,  with  Decennial 
Increase:  i 790-1920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 


1790 
1800 
181O 
1820 
1830 

1840 
1850 
i860 
1870 
1880 

1890. 
1900 
I9IO 
1920. 


Population. 


3,929,214 

5.308.483 

7,239,881 

9,638,453 

12,866,020 

17,069,453 
23,191,876 

31.443.321 
'39,818,449 

50. 15s. 783 

62,947,714 

75.994.575 

91,972,266 

105, 710,620 


Total  decennial 
increase. 


1,379,269 
1,931,398 

2,398,572 
3.227,567 

4.203,433 

6, 122,423 

8,251,445 

'8,375,128 

'  10.337.334 

12,791,931 
13,046,861 
15.977.691 
13.738,354 


Per  cent  of 
increase. 


35.1 
36-4 

33-1 
23'S 


32-7 
35-9 
35-6 
26.6 
26.0 


25-5 
20.7 
21.0 
14.9 


'  Estimated  correction  for  error  in  census  of  1870. 

The  first  70  years  of  census  taking  in  the  United  States  (1790  to 
i860)  disclosed  a  fairly  uniform  increase  in  population  of  about 
one-third  every  10  years.  This  uniformity  created  an  impression 
which  became  quite  general,  especially  among  those  unfamiliar 
with  the  factors  limiting  population  change,  that  a  one-third 
increase  per  decade  was  a  "natural"  or  normal  rate  of  growth  for 
the  United  States,  and  could  be  confidently  expected  to  continue. 
Even  so  thoughtful  a  student  of  national  affairs  as  President  Lin- 
coln fell  into  the  error  of  regarding  this  long-continued  and  roughly 


22  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

uniform  increase  as  a  safe  proportion  by  means  of  which  to  project 
the  growth  of  the  country's  population  well  into  the  future. 
This  subject  evidently  deeply  impressed  Mr.  Lincoln.  In  his 
first  annual  message  he  said :  ' '  There  are  already  among  us  those 
who,  if  the  Union  be  preserv^ed,  will  live  to  see  it  contain 
250,000,000."  In  his  second  annual  message  he  predicted 
187,000,000  inhabitants  in  the  United  States  in  1920.^ 

The  uniformly  high  rate  of  increase  during  the  period  1790  to 
i860  was  the  direct  result  of  the  expansion  of  a  new  nation  by  an 
extremely  virile  and  fertile  race.  At  the  First  Census,  1 790,  chil- 
dren under  the  age  of  16  averaged  almost  exactly  three  per  white 
family.-  This  surprisingly  high  proportion  demonstrates  without 
need  for  further  proof  the  unusual  fertility  of  the  so-called  native 
stock,  which  apparently  continued  with  little  diminution  until  the 
end  of  this  period.  Prior  to  i860  the  United  States  was  practi- 
cally in  the  pioneer  stage;  land  was  plentiful,  agriculture  was  the 
general  occupation,  life  was  simple.  Economic  conditions,  ways 
of  living,  and  the  natural  inclinations  of  a  plain  people  made  the 
family  the  most  important  institution  of  the  time.  The  rearing 
of  large  families  was  the  normal  and  proper  objective  of  life. 
But  the  Civil  War  brought  this  early  period  to  a  close,  and  was 
followed  by  an  era  of  readjustment  and  a  great  industrial  awaken- 
ing. This  was  stimulated  by  new  inventions  and  the  wider 
application  of  such  earlier  ones  as  the  steam  engine,  by  develop- 
ment of  technical  methods,  and  by  the  rapid  construction  of 
railroad  systems.  Coincidentally  with  the  development  of  in- 
dustry and  the  great  accumulation  of  wealth,  came  many  so- 
cial changes.  Old  ideals  tended  to  yield  to  new  ones.  Increas- 
ing complexities  of  life  and  more  alluring  opportunities  for  personal 
gratification  appeared  and  multiplied  while  at  the  same  time  the 
urgent  need  for  large  families  steadily  decreased.  These  and  many 
other  factors  contributed  after  i860  to  bring  about  the  continued 
decline  in  the  rate  of  population  increase. 

It  was  not  until  after  the  Civil  War  that  there  was  a  large  inllux 

'  Richardson,  Messages  of  the  Presidents,  VI,  pp.  58,  138. 

-  The  average  number  of  children  under  16  per  family,  for  all  classes  of  the  jxjpu- 
lation,  in  1920  was  a  trlHe  less  than  1.5.  (The  corresponding  average  for  white 
families  in  1920  has  not  been  computed.)  Census  "  families  "  differ  somewhat  from 
natural  families,  in  that  the  former  include  certain  economic  groups,  such  as  boarders 
or  lodgers  in  hotels,  boarding  houses,  and  lodging  houses,  and  inmates  of  institutions, 
who  are  not  related  by  blood. 


GROWTH  BEFORE  FOURTEENTH  CENSUS. 


23 


of  immigrants  whose  racial  antecedents  differed  from  those  of  the 
people  who  constituted  the  great  bulk  of  the  population  at  the 
time  of  the  First  Census.  The  increased  numbers  of  foreigners 
who  sought  the  United  States  seemingly  should  have  tended  to 
raise  the  percentage  of  population  increase;  instead,  the  rate  of 
increase  actually  declined.  As  the  industrial  life  of  the  Nation 
developed  and  as  living  became  more  complicated,  especially  in 
rapidly  growing  cities,  still  further  declines  in  the  per  cent  of 
increase  of  the  national  population  appeared  from  decade  to 
decade,  with  one  exception.     The  Thirteenth  Census  showed  a 

Comparison  of  Rate  of  Increase  in  Total  Population  with  Rate  of  Change 
OF  Immigration:  1850-1920. 


\ 


LPOPULATIDM 


1\ 


T 


^ 


slight  increase  over  the  rate  shown  for  the  previous  census.  This 
was  the  direct  result  of  the  great  influx  of  immigrants  from  1900 
to  1 9 10 — a  number  in  the  aggregate  so  large  as  to  raise  the  rate 
of  population  increase  shown  in  19 10  and  thus  to  be  capable  of 
overcoming  for  the  decade  the  general  tendency  toward  a  declining 
rate  of  growth. 

The  narrative  of  population  growth  in  the  United  States  prior 
to  1920  is  hardly  complete  without  reference  to  the  effect  of 
territorial  expansion.  Although  the  total  area  of  the  United 
States  in  1790  was  867,980  square  miles,  the  First  Census,  taken 


24 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


in  that  year,  covered  only  417,170  square  miles/  the  remainder 
being  so  sparsely  populated  that  it  was  impracticable  to  canvass 
it.  In  this  area  of  a  little  more  than  400,000  square  miles — 
scarcely  equal  to  the  combined  areas  of  California  and  Texas — 
which  contained  practically  the  entire  population  of  the  country  in 
1790,  there  were  enumerated  45,379,381  persons  in  1920,  as  com- 
pared with  a  total  of  60,331,239  in  the  remainder  of  the  country, 
consisting  of  450,000  square  miles  belonging  to  the  United  States 
in  1790  but  not  enumerated,  together  with  over  2,100,000  square 
miles  added  since  1790. 

Table  2. — Growth  of  Population  in  Area  Enumerated  in  1790, 
WITH  Growth  in  Remainder  of  Continental  United  States: 
1790T1920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 

POPULATION  OF  AREA  ENUMERATED 
IN    1790. 

POPULATION  OP  REMAINDER 
OP  CONTINENT.^.  UNITED  STATES.' 

Number. 

Per  cent  of 
increase. 

Number. 

Per  cent  of 
increase. 

1790 

3,929,214 

5.247.355 

6,779.308 

8,293,869 

10,240,232 

11,781,231 
14,569,584 
17.326,157 
19,687,504 
23.925.639 
*  28, 188,321 
33.553.630 
39.930.335 
45.379.381 

1800 

33-5 
29.2 
22.3 
23-5 
15-0 

23-7 
18.9 

13-6 
21. 5 

17.8 
19.0 
19.0 
136 

61,128 
460,573 

1,344,584 
22,625,788 

*  5,288,222 
8,622,292 
14, 117, 164 
18,870,867 
26,230,144 

34,759.393 
42,440,945 
52,041,931 
60,331.239 

181O 

653-5 
191. 9 

95-3 
101.4 
63.0 
63-7 
33-7 
39-0 

32-5 

1820 

18^0 

1840 

1850 

i860 

1870 

1880 

1800 

1000 

lOIO 

22.6 
15-9 

1020 

1  Area  belonging  to  the  United  States  but  not  enumerated  in  1790,  together  with  area  added  since  1790. 
'  Including  5,318  persons  stationed  abroad,  in  the  naval  service  of  the  United  States. 

*  Including  6,100  persons  stationed  abroad,  in  the  naval  service  of  the  United  States. 

*  The  population  of  Indian  reservations,  first  enumerated  in  1890,  is  here  included  with  that  of  the  areas 
in  which  located. 

Inspection  of  Table  2  shows  that  the  percentages  of  increase  of 
population  in  the  area  covered  by  the  First  Census  and  in  the 
remainder  of  the  country,  which  percentages  at  earlier  periods 
bore  no  resemblance  to  each  other,  tended  toward  similarity  as 
the  added  area  was  developed  and  populated,  and  that  at  the 
census  of  1920  they  differed  less  than  at  any  previous  census.  The 
increase  during  the  last  decade  in  the  original  area  was  slightly 
less  than  the  increase  for  the  entire  country,  while  that  for  the 
added  area  was  slightly  larger. 

'  This  area  now  comprises  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland, 
District  of  Columbia,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  Nortli  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Ken- 
tucky, Tennessee,  and  part  of  Georgia. 


GROWTH  BEFORE  FOURTEENTH  CENSUS. 


25 


The  record  of  population  change  during  the  1 30  years  of  American 
census  taking  indicates  remarkably  steady  growth  for  the  first  70 
vears,  followed  by  a  lower  but  equally  steady  rate  of  increase  for 
30  years  (from  i860  to  1890),  a  still  lower  rate  during  the  next 
two  decades,  and  a  sharp  decline  in  the  rate  from  1910  to  1920. 
Indeed,  were  the  decrease  in  the  rate  of  increase  shown  in  1920 
as  compared  with  19 10  to  be  repeated  in  1930,  the  increase  at  the 
Fifteenth  Census  would  be  but  8.8  per  cent;  and  if  it  continued  to 
sink  as  sharply  after  that  year,  increase  would  cease  and  decrease 
begin  before  1950.  This  serves  to  illustrate  the  marked  change 
which  occurred  in  the  percentage  of  increase  from  19 10  to  1920  in 
comparison  with  those  of  earlier  decades.  If,  however,  due 
allowance  were  made  for  the  effect  of  immigration,  the  decline  in 
the  rate  for  19 10  to  1920  as  compared  with  the  rates  for  preceding 
decades  would  be  less  pronounced,  as  will  be  seen  from  Table  39 
(p.  152),  which  shows  for  each  decade  the  rate  of  naturalincrease 
due  to  excess  of  births  over  deaths,  except  to  the  extent  to  which 
■  the  widening  of  the  area  of  enumeration  at  certain  censuses  was  a 
factor. 

Growth  of  Population  in  Area  Enumerated  in  1790,  with  Growth  in 
Remainder  of  Country:  1790-1920. 


26 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


It  is  reasonable,  therefore,  to  expect  that  future  censuses  will 
continue  to  show  moderate  rates  of  increase  characteristic  of 
rather  fully  settled  countries.* 

'  The  rates  of  increase  in  population  for  England,  Belgium,  France,  Italy,  and  Ger- 
many for  the  latest  normal  lo-year  periods  for  which  figures  are  available  were  as 
follows : 


England . . 
Belgium . . 
France . . . 

Italy  

Germany . 


Period. 


1901-1911 
1900-1910 
1901-1911 
1901-1911 
1900-1910 


Per  cent 

of 
increase. 


10.  s 
10. 9 
1.6 
«6.6 
IS» 


I  Adjusted  to  apply  to  exact  lo-year  period.    Rate  for  lo  years,  4  months,  6.8  per  cent. 


III. 

INCREASE  OF  POPULATION  IN  NATION  AND  STATES. 

From  1 910  to  1920  the  number  of  inhabitants  of  the  United 
States  increased  13,738,354.  Great  as  this  increment  was,  that 
which  occurred  from  1900  to  1910  exceeded  it,  being  the  largest 
decennial  increase  so  far  attained,  nearly  16,000,000.  Fourteen 
millions,  however,  the  increase  in  round  numbers  from  1910  to 
1920,  exceeded  all  previous  increases  except  that  shown  in  1910, 
and  suggests  the  immense  proportions  to  which  the  population  of 
the  United  States  has  attained.  So  great,  indeed,  is  it  that  the 
net  additions  to  the  Nation  over  deaths  and  departures  for  the  last 
lo-year  period  averaged  nearly  4,000  persons  per  day. 

PERCENTAGE   OF   NATIONAL   INCREASE. 

The  mere  increase  from  1910  to  1920  was  greater  than  the 
entire  population  of  the  Republic  in  1830;  it  was  equal  to  more 
than  twice  the  total  population  of  New  England  in  19 10;  it  almost 
equaled  the  aggregate  population  of  21  of  the  48  states  in  1920. 
And  yet,  although  the  figure  denotes  a  population  growth  of  such 
dimensions,  its  significance  lies  not  in  the  fact  that  it  was  so 
large  but  rather  in  the  fact  that  it  represented  the  smallest  per- 
centage of  increase  ever  reported  by  a  Federal  census.  From 
1900  to  1 910  the  rate  of  increase  was  21  per  cent;  from  1910  to 
1920  but  14.9  per  cent;  and  this  low  record  compares  sharply  with 
the  previous  low  rate,  20.7  per  cent,  shown  for  the  decade  1890 
to  1900. 

The  extremely  low  rate  of  population  increase  for  the  last 
decade  was  a  continuation  of  the  tendency  previously  pointed 
out  as  having  become  marked  since  1870  but  which  had  never 
before  been  so  pronounced. 

The  decline  in  immigration  was,  of  course,  one  of  the  chief 
causes  which  lowered  the  rate  of  increase.  Had  the  average  an- 
nual immigration  and  emigration  throughout  the  entire  decade 
been  the  same  as  for  the  five-year  period  ended  June  30,  1915,* 


^  That  is,  the  period  of  five  fiscal  years  which  most  closely  approximated  the  first 
half  of  the  period  between  the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Census  dates. 

27 


28  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  191Q-1920. 

the  population  enumerated  in  1920  would  have  been  nearly 
108,000,000  instead  of  105,710,620,  and  the  rate  of  increase  would 
have  been  a  little  more  than  17  per  cent  instead  of  14.9  per  cent. 
Thus  the  decline  in  immigration  during  the  period  from  the  out- 
break of  the  war  to  the  taking  of  the  Fourteenth  Census  was  an 
influential  factor  in  the  lowering  of  the  percentage  of  increase; 
but  even  had  immigration  continued  at  a  record  rate  throughout 
the  decade,  the  percentage  of  the  national  population  increase 
still  would  have  been  lower  than  that  shown  by  any  previous 
census  of  the  United  States. 

Another  method  by  which  to  examine  the  influence  of  immigra- 
tion upon  increase  of  population  is  to  eliminate  fluctuation  by 
taking  some  such  decade  as  1890  to  1900  as  a  standard  and  by 
calculating  the  rates  of  increase  for  succeeding  decades  on  the 
basis  of  a  net  immigration  which  would  contribute  the  same  propor- 
tion of  population  increase  that  it  actually  did  contribute  between 
1 890  and  1 900.  Thus  adjusted,  the  combined  rate  of  increase  would 
have  been  20. 7  per  cent  for  1 890  to  1 900, 1 8  per  cent  for  1 900  to  1 9 1 o, 
and  15  per  cent  for  1 910  to  1920;  and  of  the  increase  during  each 
decade  a  trifle  less  than  three-fourths  would  have  been  due  to 
excess  of  births  over  deaths  among  the  population  enumerated  at 
the  beginning  of  the  decade,  and  slightly  more  than  one-fourth  to 
excess  of  immigration  over  emigration  plus  excess  of  births  over 
deaths  in  the  families  of  the  immigrants  after  arrival  in  this 
country.  That  is  to  say,  during  1890  to  1900  the  natural  increase 
in  the  population  would  have  been  15.2  per  cent  and  the  increase 
due  to  immigration  would  have  been  5.5  per  cent;  between  1900 
and  1 910  the  two  sources  of  increase  would  have  yielded  13.2  per 
cent  and  4.8  per  cent,  respectively;  and  between  1910  and  1920, 
1 1  per  cent  and  4  per  cent,  respectively. 

Both  these  computations  go  to  show  that  were  immigration 
either  less  fluctuating  or  were  it  even  increased  to  the 
highest  rate  yet  known,  still  the  percentage  of  national 
increase  would  tend  downward.  Hence  the  percentage  of 
increase  for  the  last  decade  (14.9)  takes  on  much  significance, 
since  it  indicates  a  definite  slowing  down  in  the  rate  of  national 
population  increase.  The  results  of  immigration  restriction  if 
continued  throughout  the  next  decade,  coupled  with  a  continua- 
tion of  the  tendency  already  recognized  toward  lessened  increase 
of  the  American  people,  suggest  that  the  Fifteenth  Census  will 
show  a  rate  of  increase  probably  even  lower  than  that  brought 
out  by  the  Fourteenth  Census. 


INCREASE  IN  NATION  AND  STATES. 


29 


Table  3. — Increase  of  Population,  by  Divisions  and  States; 

1910-1920. 


POPULATION. 


DIVISION  AND  STATE. 


United  States. 


Geographic  divisions: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central . 
West  North  Central. 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central . 
West  South  Central. 

Mountain 

Pacific 


New  England: 

Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

E.^t  North  Central: 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Colimibia. 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

We.st  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mountain: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington 

Orecon 

California 


Number. 


105, 710,620 


7, 400, 909 
22, 261, 144 
21,475.543 
12,544,249 
13,990,272 

8,893.307 
10, 342, 224 

3,336,101 

=;,s66,87i 


Per 
cent  of 
total. 


Number. 


91,972, 266 


7.0 
21. 1 
20.3 
11.9 

13-2 

8.4 

9-7 

3-^ 

S-3 


6,552,681 
19,315,892 
18,250,621 
11,637,921 
12, 194,895 
8,409,901 
8, 784, 534 
2,633,517 
4,192,304 


768,014 

0.7 

742,371 

443,083 

0.4 

430,572 

352,428 

0-3 

355,956 

3,852,356 

3-6 

3,366,416 

604,397 

0.6 

542,610 

1,380,631 

1-3 

1,114,756 

0,385,227 

9.8 

9,113,614 

3,155,900 

3-0 

2,537,167 

8,  720,017 

8.2 

7,665,  III 

5,759,394 

5-4 

4,767,121 

2,930,390 

2.8 

2,  700,876 

6,485,280 

6.1 

5,638,591 

3,668,412 

3-5 

2,810, 173 

2,632,067 

2-5 

2,333,860 

2,387,125 

2-3 

2,075,708 

2,404,021 

2-3 

2,224,771 

3,404,055 

3-2 

3,293,335 

646,872 

0.6 

577,056 

636,547 

0.6 

583,888 

1,296,372 

I.  2 

1,192,214 

1,769,257 

1-7 

1,690,949 

223,003 

0.  2 

202,322 

1,449,661 

1.4 

1,295,346 

437,371 

0.4 

331,069 

2,309,187 

2.  2 

2,061,612 

1,463,701 

1-4 

I,  221,  119 

2,559,123 

2.4 

2,206,  287 

1,683,724 

1.6 

1,515,400 

2,895,832 

2.7 

2,609, 121 

968,470 

0.9 

752,619 

2,416,630 

2-3 

2,289,905 

2,337,885 

2.  2 

2,  184, 789 

2,348, 174 

2.  2 

2,138,093 

I,  790,618 

1-  7 

1,797,114 

1,752,204 

I-  7 

1,574,449 

1,798,509 

1-7 

1,656,388 

2,028,283 

1.9 

1,657,155 

4,663,228 

4.4 

3,896,542 

548,  889 

o-  5 

376,053 

431,866 

0.4 

325,594 

194,  402 

0.  2 

145,965 

939,629 

0.9 

799,024 

360,350 

0.3 

327,301 

334,162 

03 

204,354 

449, 396 

0.4 

373,351 

77,407 

0.  I 

81,875 

1,356,621 

1-3 

1,141,990 

783,389 

0.8 

672.76s 

3,426,861 

3-2 

2,377.549 

Per 
cent  of 
total. 


19-8 
12.7 
13-3 

9.1 

9.6 

2.9 

4.6  j 


0.8 
o-S 
0.4 
3-7 
0.6 


9.9 
2.8 
8-3 


2-3 
2.4 
3-6 
0.6 
0.6 


2.4 
1.6 
2.8 
0.8 


2.4 
2-3 
2.0 


O.  2 

0.9 
0.4 


0.7 

a.  6 


increase.' 
1910  to  1920. 


Number. 


13,738,354 


848,228 
2,945,252 
3,224,922 

906,328 

1,795,377 
483,406 

1,457,690 
702, 584 

1.374,567 


25,643 
12,511 
-3,528 
485,940 
61,787 
265,87s 

1,271,613 

618,733 

1,054,906 

992, 273 
229,514 
846,689 
858,239 
298, 207 

311,417 
179,250 
no,  720 
69,816 
52,659 
104, 158 
78, 308 

20,68i 
154.315 
106,502 
247,575 
242, 582 
352,836 
168,324 
286, 711 
215,851 

126,725 
153,096 
210,081 
—6,496 

l77f75S 
142, 121 
371,128 
766,686 

172,836 
106, 272 

48,437 
140, 605 

33,049 
129,808 

76,041; 
—4, 468 

214,631 

110,624 

1,049.31- 


Per 

cent. 


12.9 

IS- 2 
17-7 

7.8 
14.7 

5-7 
16.6 
26.  7 
32.8 


3-S 
2.9 
—  I.O 
14.4 
II. 4 
23-9 


14.0 
24.4 
13-8 

20.8 
8.5 
iS-o 
30.5 
12.8 

150 
8.1 
3-4 

12. 1 
9.0 
8.7 
4.6 


9.8 
—0.4 

"■3 
8.6 
22.4 
19.7 

46.0 
32.6 
33-2 
17.6 
10.  I 

63- 5 
20.4 
-5- 5 

18.8 
16.  4 


Per 
cent  of 

in- 
crease,' 
1900  to 
1910. 


17.  a 
23.0 

14-2 
12.  S 
16.8 
II. 4 
34-5 
57-3 
73-5 


6.9 
4.6 
3-6 
20.0 
26.6 
22.  7 

25.4 
34-7 
21.6 

14.7 
7-3 
16.9 
16.  I 
11.8 

18.  s 

—0.3 
6.0 
80.8 
45-4 
II. 8 
iS-o 


10.  2 

9-S 

II.9 
32-2 

9.0 
18.8 

12.  0 

ri.2 

19.9 
16.0 

27.4 
16.5 

n.  I 

13.1 

II. 0 

28.7 

i    17-7 
1    42-4 

6.6 
8.1 
16.9 
IS- 8 

20.0 
19.9 
109.7 
27-8 

54- S 
101.3 
57- 7 
48.0 
67-6 
66.2 
34-9 
93-4 

120-4 

62.7 
60.  I 


'  A  minus  sign  (  — )  denotes  decrease. 


30 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


INCREASE    BY    GEOGRAPHIC    DIVISIONS. 

Upon  advancing  the  analysis  of  population  increase  from  the 
Nation  as  a  whole  to  geographic  divisions,  it  appears  from  Table 
3  that  from  1910  to  1920  the  general  migration  of  population 
westward  decidedly  slackened  and  that  population  changes  dur- 
ing the  decade  were  irregular,  showing  less  evidence  of  a  well- 
defined  geographic  tendency  than  was  shown  in  the  previous  dec- 
ade.    In  general,  they  were  dependent  on  industrial  development. 

Rate  of  Population  Increase  in  the  United  States,  by  Divisions: 

1900-1920. 


PER  CENT 
40 


UNITED  STATES 

GEOGRAPHIC  DIVISIONS 
PACIFIC  HPH 

MOUNTAIN 

EAST  NORTH  CENTRAL 

WEST  SOUTH  CENTRAL 

MIDDLE  ATLANTIC 

SOUTH  ATLANTIC 

NEW  ENGLAND 

WEST  NORTH  CENTRAL 

CAST  SOUTH  CENTRAL 


1910  TO  1020 
EZ2Z^SI800  TO  1910 


The  Mountain  and  Pacific  divisions  continued  to  show  higher 
percentages  of  increase  than  did  other  sections  of  the  country, 
but  for  the  decade  1910  to  1920  these  rates  were  sharply  reduced 
as  compared  with  the  preceding  decade.  WTiereas  at  the  previous 
census  10  of  the  11  states  in  these  two  divisions  showed  rates 
of  increase  more  than  twice  the  average  for  the  entire  country, 
at  the  recent  census  only  5  of  the  1 1  could  be  so  classified. 

The  division  of  most  significance  is  the  East  North  Central, 
consisting  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin. 
This  division  alone,  of  the  nine  into  which  the  country  is  divided, 
showed  a  rate  of  increase  from  1910  to  1920  higher  than  for  the 
previous  decade.  It  is  much  more  than  a  coincidence  that  within 
this  same  area  occurred  the  notable  industrial  expansion  of  the 
period.  In  contrast  with  the  rapid  growth  in  the  East  North 
Central  group  was  the  very  low  rate  of  increase  reported  by  the 
East  South  Central  division.  A  considerable  northward  migra- 
tion of  Negroes  from  the  South  during  the  war  naturally  increased 
the  rate  shown  in  the  one  region  at  the  expense  of  the  other. 


INCREASE  IN  NATION  AND  STATES. 


31 


RATE   OF   INCREASE    BY   STATES. 

Of  the  48  states  which  compose  the  Union,  45  reported  increases 
of  population  from  1910  to  1920. 

The  percentage  of  increase  in  20  states  exceeded  that  for  the 
United  States.  Eight  of  these  lay  east  of  the  Mississippi  and  12 
west  of  it.  Twelve  states,  or  one-quarter  of  all,  reported  increases 
exceeding  20  per  cent.     They  were : 


Arizona 63.  5 

Montana 46.  o 

California 44-1 

Wyoming 33.  2 


Idaho 32.  6 

Michigan 30.  5 

Florida 28.  7 

New  Jersey 24.  4 


Connecticut 23.  9 

Oklahoma 22.  4 

Ohio 20.  8 

Utah 20.  4 


At  the  other  extreme,  the  12  states  which  either  showed  the 
lowest  percentages  of  increase,  or  actually  decreased,  were: 


Increase. 


Louisiana 8.  6 

Indiana 8.  5 

Iowa 8.  1 

Tennessee 7.  o 


Kentucky 5.  5 

Kansas 4.  6 

Maine 3.  5 

Missouri 3.  4 

New  Hampshire. ...  2.  9 


Decrease. 

Mississippi o.  4 

Vermont i.  o 

Nevada 5.  5 


With  two  exceptions,  Indiana  and  Iowa,  the  12  states  recording 
the  lowest  percentages  of  increase,  or  decrease,  show  declines,  in 
most  cases  considerable,  in  rate  of  growth  during  the  past  decade. 
Taken  as  a  group,  the  12  states  registered  an  increase  of  approxi- 
mately 1,000,000  in  1920,  as  against  1,500,000  in  1910.  With 
the  exception  of  the  three  northern  New  England  states,  long 
nearly  stationary  in  population,  and  Nevada,  traditionally 
dependent  on  mining  as  the  result  of  the  recurring  discoveries 
of  precious  metals,  the  states  showing  loss  or  extremely  low  per- 
centages of  increase  form  an  irregular  group  in  the  central  and 
southern  parts  of  the  United  States.  In  all  the  states  in  this 
group  the  rural  areas  tended  to  decrease  in  population,  and  no 
doubt  contributed,  from  communities  and  industries  not  stimu- 
lated by  war  conditions,  to  those,  especially  in  the  great  central 
industrial  states  near  by,  which  urgently  called  for  both  skilled 
and  unskilled  labor.  In  Louisiana,  for  example,  much  of  the 
shrinkage  from  the  19.9  per  cent  of  increase  from  1900  to  19 10 
to  the  8.6  per  cent  shown  in  1920  was  due  to  the  conversion  of  a 
Negro  increase  of  63,000  in  the  earlier  decade  into  a  loss  of  over 
13,000  in  the  later  period.  This,  like  similar  losses  in  Negro 
population  reported  by  other  Southern  states,  and  elsewhere 
more  fully  discussed,  resulted  directly  from  the  exceptional  con- 
ditions appearing  in  the  decade  from  19 10  to  1920. 


D 

o 

< 

O 

H 


-   r-   „  o  a  T3 

So  2^  8  8  «  ^ 

i  a  s  s  s  ^  -5 

h     w     O  O  O  ^  >► 

^     wi    -t-t  w  ■*--  C  >■ 

O  ,42  S  g  S 


DliPS 


32 


1 

i 

/        * 
/ 

i 
i 
} 
i 

d           ' 
I          / 

i 

—  1 — ' 

/ 

^      o 

1 

i 
i 

^'^ 


y 


-l i. 


^    ^    \t, 

M    CI    W 


107°— 22- 


33 


34  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

The  five  states  which  show  the  highest  percentages  of  increase 
from  1910  to  1920  were  all  in  the  West.  With  the  exception  of 
California  each  of  these  states  had  a  small  population,  so  that  its 
rate  was  sharply  affected  by  a  numerical  increase  small  in  com- 
parison with  the  increases  shown  by  many  of  the  larger  states. 

The  general  causes  for  these  high  rates  of  growth  in  the  five  states 
specified  were  evident.  Irrigation,  for  example,  added  to  the 
farms  of  Arizona  over  147,000  acres  of  fertile  soil,  or  approximately 
46  per  cent. 

This  figure  is  of  especial  significance  because  of  the  fact  that 
nearly  66  per  cent  of  the  improved  farm  land  in  Arizona  is  subject 
to  irrigation.  Still  greater  irrigation  projects  were  undertaken 
during  the  decade  in  other  states,  and  exerted  a  decided  influ- 
ence upon  population  increase.  California,  with  1,555,000  acres 
added  during  the  decade  to  its  improved  farm  land  by  new  irriga- 
tion enterprises,  and  Idaho,  with  1,058,000  acres,  showed  the 
greatest  developments  along  these  lines.  Nevada,  the  one  western 
state  in  which  an  actual  decrease  in  population  took  place,  and  in 
which  94.4  per  cent  of  all  improved  farm  land  is  irrigated,  showed 
a  decrease  in  irrigated  acreage  of  140,000,  or  20  per  cent.  During 
the  decade  over  35,000,000  acres  in  Montana  and  more  than 
18,000,000  in  California  were  taken  up  on  original  homesteading 
grants. 

These  agricultural  developments  may  also  be  raeasiu-ed  in 
other  terms.  The  increase  in  the  number  of  farms  in  the  entire 
country  was  1.4  per  cent.  In  comparison  with  this  figure  the 
number  of  farms  in  Montana  increased  by  1 20  per  cent,  wliile  in 
Wyoming  the  increase  was  43.3  per  cent,  in  Idaho  36.7  per  cent, 
and  in  CaHfornia  33.4  per  cent.  The  increase  in  mere  number  of 
farms,  however,  is  not  always  significant.  The  number  of  farms 
in  Arizona,  for  example,  increased  8.1  per  cent,  but  the  number 
of  acres  in  the  farms  increased  365.4  per  cent.  The  agricultural 
resources  of  the  West  continue  to  be  developed,  but  depend  less 
and  less  upon  mere  cultivation  and  more  upon  scientific  assistance 
such  as  irrigation. 

There  was  considerable  growth  in  the  western  cities,  Los  Angeles 
being  the  striking  example,  with  an  increase  of  over  a  quarter  of 
a  million  persons  during  the  decade.  This  increase  was  drawn 
largely  from  distant  states,  and  doubtless  entailed  no  unwonted 
drain  upon  rural  California. 


INCREASE  IN  NATION  AND  STATES.  35 

While  the  first  five  states  in  order  of  rate  of  increase  from  1910 
to  1920  are  in  the  Far  West,  the  next  four  are  all  east  of  the 
Mississippi  River,  being,  in  order,  Michigan,  Florida,  New  Jersey, 
and  Connecticut.  The  expansion  of  population  in  these  states 
was  in  all  cases  well  above  that  of  the  country  as  a  whole.  The 
growth  of  Michigan  resulted  in  the  main  from  the  automobile 
industry.  Florida  developed  its  possibilities  as  an  agricultural 
state,  although  a  considerable  part  of  its  growth  appeared  in 
Jacksonville,  Tampa,  and  Pensacola.  Moreover,  Florida  un- 
doubtedly benefited  by  the  change  in  the  date  of  enumeration 
from  April  15  in  19 10  to  January  i  in  1920.  The  states  of  New 
Jersey  and  Connecticut  both  declined  somewhat  in  agriculture, 
but  expanded  in  population  because  of  the  war  demands  for 
munitions,  ships,  and  manufactured  products. 

NUMERICAL  INCREASE. 

In  analysis  of  population  changes  it  is  customary  to  utilize  the 
percentage  as  the  conclusive  measure  of  increase  or  decrease. 
Such  measurement,  however,  reflects  merely  what  has  happened 
in  relation  to  a  given  base.  If  that  is  small,  population  increase 
may  bulk  large  in  percentage  and  very  small  in  actual  numbers. 
Thus  in  1920  some  of  the  largest  percentages  related  to  numerical 
increases  scarcely  noticeable  in  the  national  increase.  Hence 
mere  percentage  measurement  may  prove  extremely  misleading. 

Is  the  percentage  of  state  increase  a  just  measurement  of  popu- 
lation change  within  the  Union?  After  all,  it  has  come  about 
that  in  the  broadest  sense  states  are  but  geographic  districts  of  a 
great  and  united  Nation.  Are  not  those  who  study  the  returns  of 
the  Federal  censuses  as  throwing  light  upon  national  development 
more  concerned  with  actual  numerical  increase  or  decrease,  and 
especially  the  distribution  of  the  14,000,000  additional  inhabitants 
recorded  in  1920,  than  with  mere  percentage  fluctuations  ? 

If  this  be  granted,  it  will  be  profitable  to  consider  in  some 
detail  numerical  increase.  Some  states  may  be  conspicuous  in 
both  classifications,  but  it  is  to  be  expected  that  great  centers  of 
population,  however  low  their  percentages  of  increase,  will  con- 
tribute the  greater  part  of  the  total  increase  shown  by  the  Nation. 


36 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


The  12  states  which  made  the  largest  numerical  contributions 
toward  the  increase  of  nearly  14,000,000  reported  in  1920  were  as 
follows,  in  the  order  of  numbers  contributed: 


Total 8,  979,  772 


New  York 1,271,  613 

Pennsylvania i,  054,  906 

California i,  049,  312 

Ohio 992,  273 

Michigan 858,  239 


Illinois 

Texas 

New  Jersey.  . .  . 
Massachusetts. . 

Oklahoma 

North  Carolina. 
Minnesota 


846, 689 
766,  686 
618, 733 

485,  940 
371.128 
352,  836 
3".  417 


These  states,  therefore,  supplied  about  9,000,000  of  the  entire 
increase  occurring  from  19 10  to  1920.  Thus  one-quarter  of  the 
states  contributed  about  two-thirds  of  the  total  population 
growth.  These  obviously  were  the  main  sources  or  channels  of 
national  increase. 


IV. 

STATES    WHICH    INCREASED    BUT   SLIGHTLY,   OR 
DECREASED,  IN  POPULATION. 

In  the  preceding  analysis  1 2  states  have  been  specified  as  the  most 
liberal  numerical  contributors  toward  the  national  increase  in  1920. 
The  12  states  at  the  other  extreme  must,  of  course,  include  the 
three  which  reported  actual  decrease  in  population  during  the 
decade.  The  list  which  follows  is  thus  grouped  in  two  parts: 
states  showing  low  numerical  increase,  and  states  showing  decrease. 


Increase.  '  Decrease. 

Utah 76,045 

North  Dakota ....     69,  816 

Delaware 20,  681  j  Mississippi 6. 

New  Hampshire.  .      12,  511  | 


Rhode  Island 61,  787 

South  Dakota.  ...     52,  659 
Wyoming 48,537 


New  Mexico 33, 049  1  Vermont 3,  528 

Maine 25,  643    Nevada 4,  468 


Of  those  states  in  the  group  which  showed  increase,  the  highest, 
Utah,  contributed  but  76,000;  and  the  lowest,  New  Hampshire, 
less  than  13,000.  The  entire  group  of  12  states  made  a  net  con- 
tribution of  less  than  400,000  persons  to  the  increase  of  14,000,000 
added  to  the  national  population  from  19 10  to  1920.  It  is  thus 
of  much  interest  to  observe  at  one  extreme  a  group  of  12  states 
which  together  contributed  nearly  two- thirds  of  all  the  national 
increase  and  at  the  other  extreme  a  group  of  states  equal  in  number 
which  together  contributed  but  one  thirty-sixth  of  the  total  in- 
crease during  the  decade.  Had  the  latter  12  states  returned  an 
aggregate  increase  at  the  percentage  shown  by  the  Nation  as  a 
whole  from  19 10  to  1920,  their  numerical  increase,  instead  of 
being  less  than  400,000,  would  have  approached  1,000,000. 
.  Attention  is  invited  to  the  changes  during  the  decade  in  the 
three  states  showing  the  smallest  increase,  and  in  the  three  which 
decreased. 

STATES   SHOWING   SMAI.I.   INCREASES. 

Maine. 

Since  i860  the  highest  rate  of  increase  in  Maine,  6.9  per  cent, 
was  that  for  the  decade  1900  to  1910. 

37 


38 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


There  are  i6  counties  in  the  state.  Of  these,  5  decreased  in 
population  from  1910  to  1920.  They  are  located  along  the  coast 
from  Lincoln  County,  which  borders  on  the  Kennebec  River,  to 
the  Canadian  border.  The  decline  in  this  coast  region  is  but  the 
continuation  of  a  tendency  which  has  been  manifesting  itself  for 
a  considerable  period.  Two  of  these  counties,  Lincoln  and  Waldo, 
have  decreased  at  each  census  since  1850;  Hancock  and  Knox 
have  decreased  during  each  decade  since  1880;  and  Washington 
has  decreased  at  both  of  the  last  two  censuses.  In  i860  these  five 
counties  had  an  aggregate  population  of  179,314,  as  compared  with 
135,619  in  1920.  At  the  latter  census  they  contained  but  5  cities 
and  3  towns  with  more  than  2,500  inhabitants,  the  largest  being 
Rockland ,  8 , 1 09 .  This  is  the  oldest  settled  area  in  the  state  and  has 
long  been  a  shipping  and  fishing  center.  The  other  counties  have, 
in  the  main,  shown  consistent  increase  in  population,  except 
Sagadahoc,  which  decreased  8.6  per  cent  during  the  decade  from 
1900  to  1 9 10,  This  is  the  next  county  southwest  of  the  group 
which  has  so  steadily  decreased. 


Table  4. 


-Increase  or  Decrease  of  Population  in  Maine: 
1790-1920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 

INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  (  — ) 
SINCE  PRECEDING  CENSUS. 

CENSUS  YEAR. 

INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  (  — ) 
SINCE  PRECEDING  CENSUS. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

Number. 

Percent. 

1800 

55. 179 
76, 986 
69,  630 
lor,  120 
102,  338 
81,376 
45,  no 

57-2 
50-7 
30-4 
33-9 
25.6 
16.  2 
7-7 

1870 

—  1.364 

22,  02r 
12, 150 
33. 380 

47.  905 
25.  643 

—  0.  2 

181O 

i88o 

3-5 

1.9 

50 
6.9 

3-5 

1820 

1800 

18^0 

1900 

184.0 

I9IO 

i8so 

TQ20 

i860 

Aroostook  alone,  of  all  the  counties,  showed  an  increase  in  im- 
proved farm  land,  whereas  the  state  as  a  whole  showed  a  loss  in  this 
respect  of  383,328  acres,  or  16.2  per  cent.  The  growth  in  this 
county  is  a  continuance  of  the  expansion  due  to  the  discovery 
that  its  soil  was  particularly  favorable  to  the  raising  of  potatoes. 
This  one  county  alone  produced  2 1 ,33 1 ,934  bushels  of  potatoes  in 
19 1 9,  at  a  yield  of  252  bushels  per  acre,  and  was  the  leading 
county  in  the  United  States  in  potato  production. 


STATES  SHOWING  SLIGHT  INCREASE,  OR  DECREASE.        39 


In  1900,  33.5  per  cent  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  state  were  urban; 
in  1910,  35.3  per  cent;  and  in  1920,  39  per  cent.  Although  the 
rural  population  in  the  entire  state  decreased  by  nearly  12,000,  in 
five  counties  it  showed  increases— Aroostook,  Franklin,  Penobscot, 
Piscataquis,  and  York. 

Maine — Increase  or  Decrease  in  PoPLn,ATioN  op  Counties: 
1900-1920. 


I I  Increase  both  1910  and  1920 

Decrease  1910;  increase  1920 

Decrease  1920;  increase  1910 

BSB  Decrease  both  1910  and  1920 


Movement  toward  large  towns  and  cities  was  as  evident  in 
Maine  as  elsewhere  in  the  Nation.  Most  of  the  cities  in  the 
state  showed  gains  during  the  decade,  Portland  leading  with  an 
increase  of  over  10,000.  Bath,  with  56. S,  had  the  highest  per- 
centage of  increase.  This  is  probably  due  to  war-time  expansion, 
because  of  the  fact  that  the  only  steel  shipbuilding  industry  in 
the  state  is  located  there.  The  six  principal  cities  of  the  state 
together  contributed  more  than  the  entire  increase  in  population 
reported  by  the  state  in  1920. 


Maine — Towns  Showing  Decrease:  1910-1920. 


f-^r-i-^' 


I'^cj^io  -  "^ 


IS; 


^i.:^^;p" 


Shaded  areas  show  decrease. 
No  population  reported. 


iS^ 


^^v 


STATES  SHOWING  SLIGHT  INCREASE,  OR  DECREASE. 


41 


Decreases  in  rural  population  are  found  to  be  so  general  that 
the  smallness  of  the  aggregate  increase  in  the  state  as  a  whole  is 
readily  accounted  for.  The  following  table  presents,  by  counties, 
the  number  of  cities  and  organized  towns  in  the  state,  dis- 
tributed as  increasing  or  decreasing: 

Tabi,e  5. — Number  of  Cities,  Towns,  and  Other  Civil  Divisions 
IN  Maine  Showing  Increase  or  Decrease  in  Population,  by 
Counties:  1920. 


Total . 

Androscoggin 
Aroostook .  .  . 
Cumberland . 
Franklin 

Hancock 

Kennebec. .  . 

Knox 

Lincoln 

Oxford 

Penobscot. . . 
Piscataquis. . 
Sagadahoc . .  . 

Somerset .... 

Waldo 

Washington . 
York 


Total  number 

of  cities,  towns, 

etc.' 


14 

no 

26 

40 

43 
30 
20 

89 

75 


67 
26 
62 
28 


Number 
increasing  in 
population. 


Number 
decreasing  in 
population. 


438 


3 

70 


9 
7 
3 
4 

16 

33 

34 

5 

25 

5 

19 

ID 


40 
16 


34 
23 
17 
IS 

35 

56 

41 

6 

41 
21 

43 
17 


'  Includes  all  townships,  gores,  plantations,  islands,  grants,  tracts,  and  surpluses  reporting  any  popula- 
tion in  either  1920  or  1910. 
^  Includes  three  civil  divisions  with  no  change  in  population. 
'  Includes  one  civil  division  with  no  change  in  population. 

From  this  table  it  appears  that  of  the  712  cities,  towns,  and  other 
civil  divisions,  438,  or  nearly  two-thirds,  decreased  in  population. 
In  15  of  the  16  counties  a  majority  of  the  towns  reported  decreases, 
and  in  Hancock  County  four-fifths  of  the  towns  decreased. 

Delaware. 

Of  the  three  states  reporting  very  low  numerical  increases, 
Delaware  alone  contributed  about  the  same  increment  as  in 
previous  censuses,  and  actually  slightly  increased  it  over  that 
returned  in  19 10.  In  one  respect,  however,  the  population  record 
of  Delaware  in  1920  was  exceptional. 


42 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


Tabi,b  6. — ^Increase  of  Popui^ation  in  DeIvAware:  i  790-1920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 

INCREASE  SINCE  PRECEDING 

CENSUS. 

CE.NSUS   YEAR. 

INCREASE  SINCE  PRECEDING 
CENSUS. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

Number.           Per  cent. 

1800 

5.177 
8,  401 

75 

3,999 

1,337 

13-447 

20,  684 

8.8 

13- I 
0.  I 

5-5 

1-7 

17.2 

22.  6 

1870 

12,799 

21,593 
21,885 

16,  242 

17,  587 
20,  681 

II. 4 

17-3 

14.9 

9.6 

9-5 

181O 

1880 

1820 

1890 

1870 

1900 

I9IO 

1840 

i8?o 

1920 

i860 

Delaware — ^In'Cre.\se  or  Decrease  in  Population  op  Counties: 

1900-1920. 


1  1  Increase  both  1910  and  1920 
Decrease  1920;  increase  1910 
Decrease  both  1910  and  1920 


The  state,  having  small  geographic  area,  consists  of  but  three 
counties,  Kent,  New  Castle,  and  Sussex.  The  first  and  last  are 
essentially  rural,  differing  sharply  from  New  Castle,  which  includes 


STATES  SHOWING  SLIGHT  INCREASE,  OR  DECREASE. 


43 


the  city  of  Wilmington  and  which  contains  almost  exactly  two- 
thirds  of  the  population  of  the  state.  Very  nearly  one-half  of  the 
state's  inhabitants  were  enumerated  in  Wilmington  alone.  Since 
i860  Kent  County  has  three  times  shown  a  decrease:  in  1890, 
1 9 10,  and  1920.  During  the  same  period  Sussex  has  reported 
but  one  decrease,  in  1920.  While  this  small  state  has  grown 
slowly  but  with  singular  uniformity  for  30  years,  and  actually 
increased  fractionally  its  percentage  of  increase  from  1910  to 
1920  as  compared  with  those  for  the  last  two  preceding  decades, 
nevertheless  this  increase  for  the  first  time  came  exclusively  from 
New  Castle  County,  and  in  reality  almost  entirely  from  the  city 
of  Wilmington;  while  the  remainder  of  the  state,  comprising  Kent 
and  Sussex  Counties,  recorded  a  decrease  of  population  amounting 
to  more  than  4,000.  Thus  the  increase  in  Wilmington  offset  the 
loss  elsewhere  and  contributed  practically  the  entire  increase  shown 
by  the  state.  At  no  previous  census  has  the  rural  area  of  Delaware 
shown  a  net  decline  in  population. 

New  Hampshire. 

New  Hampshire  was  among  the  first  of  the  American  colonies 
to  become  generally  settled.  Although  during  the  130  years  of 
census -taking  its  population  more  than  trebled,  this  growth,  in 
comparison  with  the  expansion  of  the  entire  United  States  to 
practically  27  times  its  1790  population,  was  extremely  deliberate. 

Table  7. — Increase  or  Decrease  of  Population  in  New  Hampshire: 

1790-1920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 

INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  (  — ) 
SINCE  PRECEDING  CENSUS. 

CENSUS   YEAR. 

INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  (  — ) 
SINCE   PRECEDING   CENSUS. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

1800 

41,  973 
30,  602 
29,  701 
25,  167 
IS.  246 
2,?,,  402 
8,097 

29.  6 
16.6 
13-8 
IO-3 

5-  7 
II.  7 

2-  5 

1870 

1880 

1890 

1900 

IQIO 

-7.773              -2.4 
28,  691                 9.  0 

20,  KXQ                       8.  C 

181O 

1820 

iS^io 

35.  058 
18,  984 
12,511 

9-3 
4.6 
2.9 

1840 

i8t;o 

1920 

i860 

There  are  10  counties  in  the  state,  of  which  5  increased  and  5 
decreased  during  the  decade.  The  5  decreasing  counties  con- 
stitute the  central  area  of  the  state,  and  include  the  lake  and 
mountain  region.  The  greatest  increase  was  shown  by  Coos 
County  in  the  extreme  north,  and  a  fairly  consistent  increase 
was  shown  also  by  the  counties  in  the  south.     That  these  tend- 


44 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


encies  are  not  entirely  the  result  of  temporary  causes  is  sug- 
gested by  the  past  records  of  the  two  counties  showing  the  great- 
est increase  and  the  greatest  decrease  during  the  decade  19 lo 
to  1920;  namely,  Coos  County,  with  an  increase  of  17.4  per  cent, 
and  Carroll  County,  which  decreased  8  per  cent.  The  popula- 
tion of  these  two  counties  since  1880  has  been  as  follows: 


COUNTY.' 

1880 

1890 

1900 

1910 

1920 

Coos 

18,  580 
18,  224 

23,211 

18,  124 

29, 468 
16,  895 

30.  753 
16,316 

36,093 
15.017 

Carroll 

These  opposite  tendencies  are  especially  interesting,  since  the 
two  counties  border  on  each  other. 


New  Hampshire — Increase  or  Decrease  in  Population  op  Counties: 

1900-1920. 


i J  Increase  both  1910  and  1920 

Decrease  1910;  increase  1920 
Decrease  1920;  increase  1910 

fZ^  Decrease  both  1910  and  1920 


STATES  SHOWING  SLIGHT  INCREASE,  OR  DECREASE.        45 

Of  the  remaining  counties  in  the  state,  the  only  ones  that 
showed  any  considerable  change  during  the  last  decade  were  Hills- 
borough and  Sullivan,  which  reported  increases  of  7.5  per  cent 
and  8.2  per  cent,  respectively.  Hillsborough  includes  the  largest 
two  cities  in  the  state,  Manchester  and  Nashua,  and  their  develop- 
ment and  expansion  as  manufacturing  centers  have  resulted  in 
large  numerical  increases  within  the  county.  In  1920  it  con- 
tained more  than  three-tenths  of  the  entire  population  of  the 
state.  On  the  other  hand,  Sullivan,  with  no  cities  and  with  only 
one  town  having  more  than  5,000  inhabitants,  increased  at  a 
slightly  greater  rate  than  Hillsborough.  Moreover,  Sullivan's 
rate  of  increase  advanced  from  4.1  for  the  decade  1890  to  1900  to 
7.4  for  1900  to  1910  and  8.2  for  1910  to  1920,  whereas  for  Hills- 
borough the  rate  declined  during  the  same  three  decades  from 
20.8  per  cent  to  11.9  per  cent  and  7.5  per  cent. 

The  most  interesting  feature  of  population  change  in  New 
Hampshire,  however,  has  been  not  the  county  developments  but 
rather  those  within  the  minor  civil  divisions,  that  is,  in  the  cities 
and  towns.  In  this  respect  the  experience  of  New  Hampshire  is 
not  exceptional  but  rather  indicates  a  tendency  present  in  many 
states. 

TaBI^E  8. — ^TOWNS  AND  CiTlES  IN  NEW  HAMPSmRE  CLASSIFIED  BY  SiZE, 

1920,  AND  BY  Increase  or  Decrease,  19 10-1920,  by  Counties. 


New  Hampshire . 


Belknap. 
Carroll .  . 
Cheshire . 
Coos  ' .  .  . 
Grafton . 


Hillsborough . 
Merrimack .  . 
Rockingham . 

Strafford 

Sullivan 


Per 
cent  of 
increase 
or  de- 
crease; 
19 10  to 

1920. 


2.9 


-0.6 

-8.0 
I.  o 

17.4 

-2.6 

7-5 

-2.9 

0.6 

—  I.  o 


To- 
tal. 


179 


NUMBER  OF  TOWNS  AND   CITIES  GROUPED  BY   SIZE. 


Decreasing. 


Un- 
der 

Soo 


71 


500 

to 

1,000 


66 


1,000 
to 

2,500 


32 


2,500 

to 
5.000 


Over 

5,000 


Total. 


72 


4 

3 

4 

19 

II 

9 

5 

II 


Increasing. 


Un- 
der 

500 


500    1,000 

to       to 

1,000  2,500 


25 


to 

5,000 


Over 

5,ooo 


.  .  .  I 

2  I 

I  I 


'  Eleven  minor  civil  divisions  in  Coos  County  returned  no  inhabitants  in  both  1910  and  1920. 

From  the  table  above  it  is  possible  to  analyze  the  minor  civil 
divisions,  in  terms  of  size  groupings,  with  regard  to  increase  or 
decrease  of  population.     It  is  significant  that  in  general  the  smaller 


46  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


towns  show  decreases  and  the  larger  towns  increases  sufficient  to 
result  in  a  small  net  increase  for  the  state  as  a  whole.  Of  the  167 
subdivisions  having  fewer  than  1,000  inhabitants,  137,  or  approx- 
imately 82  per  cent,  showed  actual  losses  in  population.  If 
Coos  County  be  eliminated  from  consideration,  in  the  rest  of  the 
state,  which  includes  all  but  the  extreme  northerly  section,  out  of 
137  such  towns  there  were  only  15  which  increased.  If  a  group 
be  formed  of  towns  having  from  1,000  to  5,000  inhabitants,  here 
again  the  number  decreasing  predominated,  though  by  no  means 
so  decidedly.  Of  the  70  in  this  group,  40,  or  57  per  cent,  decreased. 
The  group  of  towns  and  cities  reporting  over  5,000  inhabitants, 
however,  showed  just  as  definite  a  trend  toward  increase  as  the 
smaller  towns  showed  toward  decrease,  12  of  the  14  such  com- 
munities reporting  actual  increases  in  population.  The  two  de- 
creases occurred  in  Strafford  County,  but  the  single  increase  in 
this  group  in  the  same  county  was  more  than  three  times  as 
great  as  the  sum  of  the  two  decreases. 

The  only  county  in  which  the  number  of  towns  increasing 
exceeded  the  number  decreasing  was  Coos.  All  the  other  counties 
showed  an  excess  of  towns  decreasing.  Some,  such  as  Cheshire, 
showed  increases  in  population,  even  though  most  of  their  minor 
civil  divisions  registered  decreases  during  the  decade. 

In  1900,  55  per  cent  of  the  population  of  New  Hampshire  was 
urban;  in  1910,  59.2  per  cent;  and  in  1920,  63.1  per  cent.  The 
rural  districts  probably  distribute  their  losses  to  all  parts  of  the 
country  as  well  as  to  the  local  urban  centers,  while  the  urban 
centers  gain  not  only  this  addition  but  nearly  all  newcomers  to 
the  state,  both  native  and  alien. 

The  significance  of  this  change  is  emphasized  by  the  census  of 
agriculture,  which  showed  that  in  1910  there  were  27,053  farms 
in  New  Hampshire,  and  in  1920  only  20,523.  This  is  a  decrease 
in  number  of  approximately  one-fourth.  It  was  not  the  result 
of  consolidation,  for  the  number  of  acres  of  land  in  farms  decreased 
by  almost  two-thirds  of  a  million,  and  the  improved  land  in 
farms  decreased  from  929,185  to  702,902  acres,  or  by  24.4  per 
cent.  This  is  not  a  new  tendency.  The  number  of  acres  of 
improved  farm  land  in  the  state  has  decreased  during  every 
decade  since  i860,  and  is  now  less  than  one- third  of  the  figure 
for  that  year. 

With  the  increasing  trend  toward  the  large  town  and  city,  the 
problem  of  states  such  as  New  Hampshire  and  Vermont  appears 
to  lie  in  maintaining  the  small  town  in  a  condition  of  reasonable 
prosperity. 


New  Hampshire — Towns  Showing  Decrease:  19 10-1920. 


W:<:'^  ■  - ":-^fmmi^/  ^  vA 


/:'->s 


g 


y 


pf 


4 


\/ 

ST^AJTOROS 

J 

/ 

p '" 

N  G  H  >  »y 

Shaded  areas  show  decrease. 
♦  No  population  reported. 


•/" 


47 


48 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


STATES   SHOWING   DECREASES. 

During  the  first  70  years  of  American  census-taking,  every 
state  reported  an  increase  of  population  at  each  successive  census. 
Since  i860  there  have  been  8  decreases  reported  (disregarding 
those  due  to  detachments  of  territory),  and  3  of  these  appeared 
in  1920.  The  following  statement  shows  the  states  in  which 
these  decreases  occurred : 


I860-I870                  I87&-I880 

I 880-1 890 

1890-1900           1900-1910 

1910-19:0 

Maine. 

New  Hampshire. 

Nevada. 

Nevada. 

Iowa. 

Vermont. 

Nevada. 

Mississippi. 

Of  the  8  decreases  in  state  population,  3  were  shown  by  Nevada, 
though  that  state  returned  in  1920  nearly  double  the  population 
returned  in  1900.  The  3  states  which  reported  decreases  in  1920 
were  located  at  geographic  extremes — South,  West,  and  East. 
The  causes  of  their  decline  in  population  were  in  general  dissimilar. 

Vermont. 

Of  the  three  states  which  recorded  decrease  in  population  at  the 
Fourteenth  Census,  Vermont  presents  problems  in  some  respects 
the  most  serious.  The  population  in  1910  was  355,956;  in  1920, 
352,428. 

Tabi,e  9. — Increase  or  Decrease  of  Population  in  Vermont: 

1 790-1920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 

INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  (  — ) 
SINCE  PRECEDING  CENSUS. 

CENSUS  YEAR. 

INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  (— ) 
SINCE  PRECEDING  CENSUS. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

1800 

69,040 

63.430 
18,086 
44.671 
11,296 
22, 172 
978 

80.8 
41. 1 

8.3 
18.9 
4.0 
7.6 
0-3 

1870 

1880 

15.453 

1.735 

136 

11,219 

12.315 
-3.528 

4-9 
0-5 

3-4 

3-6 

— 1.0 

1810 

1820 

i8qo 

18^0 

IQOO 

1840 .    .                

IQIO 

i8<;o 

1Q20 

i860 

<  Less  than  one-tenth  of  i  per  cent. 


In  the  case  of  Mississippi  the  decrease  in  total  population  from 
1910  to  1920  resulted  from  the  departure  of  large  numbers  of 
Negroes  under  the  lure  of  high  wages  in  northern  cities  during  a 


STATES  SHOWING  SLIGHT  INCREASE,  OR  DECREASE.        49 


period  of  unusual  industrial  pressure,  but  conditions  in  Mississippi 
in  the  future  are  likely  to  revert  to  those  existing  in  earlier  periods. 
In  the  case  of  Nevada,  population  was  first  attracted  to  the  state 
by  the  discovery  of  gold  and  silver;  it  promises  to  become  increas- 
ingly stable  with  the  development  of  agriculture  by  irrigation. 

Vermont — Increase  or  Decrease  in  Population  op  Counties: 

1900-1920. 


and  1920 
increase  1920 
increase  1910 
1910  and  1920 


Vermont  population  changes  are  due  to  different  causes.  It  is 
true  that  the  great  migration  toward  industrial  centers  arising 
from  war  activities  affected  Vermont  unfavorably.  In  the  case  of 
nearly  all  the  other  states  a  considerable  part  of  the  movement 
from  country  to  city  found  its  objective  in  the  larger  communities 
within  the  same  states.  In  Vermont,  small  in  area,  having  few 
cities  and  no  large  ones,  lying  at  the  door  of  the  great  industrial 
centers,  an  unusually  large  proportion  of  those  citizens  who  deter- 

107°— 22 4 


50  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

mined  to  seek  larger  communities  went  beyond  the  boundaries  of 
the  state.  But  the  changes  thus  described  have  been  in  progress 
in  Vermont  for  a  long  period.  The  population  has  increased  little 
in  the  last  50  years.  Of  the  14  counties  in  the  state,  those  border- 
ing on  the  Connecticut  River,  Windham,  Windsor,  Orange,  Cale- 
donia, and  Essex,  considered  as  a  group,  recorded  an  almost 
continuous  decrease  for  70  years,  their  population  in  1920  being 
113,762,  as  compared  with  122,923  in  1850.  The  group  of  lake 
counties,  Rutland,  Addison,  Chittenden,  Franklin,  and  Grand  Isle, 
showed  a  moderate  but  nearly  continuous  increase  until  19 10, 
but  reported  a  decrease  of  1,826  from  1910  to  1920;  while  the 
midland  counties,  Washington,  Lamoille,  and  Orleans,  together 
showed  a  decrease  of  about  3,000  from  1910  to  1920. 

It  is  not  in  the  county  figures,  however,  that  the  far-reaching 
change  which  has  taken  place  in  the  rural  population  of  Vermont 
appears  most  strikingly.  There  are  in  the  state  251  cities,  towns, 
and  other  di\'isions  having  some  population  in  1920  or  1910.^  Some 
of  them  began  to  decrease  as  early  as  1830.  One-sixth,  indeed,  of 
all  the  towns  showed  some  decrease  at  that  census,  but  this  pos- 
sessed little  significance,  since  there  was  much  shifting  and  adjust- 
ment of  population  in  settling  wilderness  areas.  In  1 850  fewer  than 
100  towns  showed  decreases.  This  number  had  increased  to  1 40  in 
1880,  but  the  movement  to  the  West  and  to  the  cities  culminated 
for  the  nineteenth  century  in  1890,  when  188  towns  showed 
decreases.  This  total  of  decreasing  towns  declined  in  1900  and 
1910,  but  showed  a  sharp  increase  again  in  1920,  when  188  towns, 
or  nearly  three-fourths  of  the  entire  number,  recorded  decreases. 
Had  the  population  change  in  Vermont  been  along  slow  but  con- 
tinuous lines  of  increase,  a  large  number  of  towns  should  have 
shown  their  maximum  population  at  the  last  census,  but,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  maximum  had  been  reached  by  1 29  towns  (or 
more  than  one-half  of  all  in  the  state)  in  or  before  1850.^  Conse- 
quently a  minority  of  the  to-wois  have  recorded  maximum  popula- 
tion within  the  last  70  years. 

Vermont  is  thus  peculiarly  the  victim  of  the  population  trend 
of  the  times.  It  withstood  in  the  earlier  periods  of  economic 
change  in  New  England  the  strong  tendency  toward  industrial 
development  and  has  clung  with  a  persistence  which  is  noteworthy, 
and,  indeed,  in  our  time  Avorthy  of  more  admiration  than  is 
accorded  it,  to  agricultural  interests  and  farm  life.     But  the  tenac- 

'  In  addition,  there  are  3  gores  and  i  township  having  no  population  in  cither 
1920  or  J910. 
^  American  Statistical  Association  Quarterly,  March,  191 1,  p.  412. 


Vermont-Towns  (Shaded)  Showing  Decrease:  igi 


910-1920. 


,^  >  WATtRBOl 


No  population  reported  for 
Avery's  gore  and  Warren  gore, 
l*wis  township,  and  Warner's 
grant,  in  Essex  County,  nor 
ior  Aver>''s  gore,  in  Franklin 
County. 


SI 


52  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

ity  of  purpose  of  the  population  in  general  has  not  prevented 
the  drain,  evident  all  over  the  Nation,  although  more  pronounced 
in  the  Eastern  states  than  elsewhere,  of  the  rural  areas  for  the 
benefit  of  the  cities  and  the  Far  West.  Outside  the  lo  large  towns 
and  cities  in  Vermont  the  population  was  smaller  by  approximately 
30,000  in  1920  than  in  1850.  In  these  towns  and  cities  the  increase 
in  70  years  was  approximately  65,000;  hence  on  these  communities 
fell  the  burden  of  making  good  the  loss  and  furnishing  whatever 
net  increase  in  the  state's  population  occurred,  about  38,000. 

The  rural  population  continues  largely  of  the  native  white 
stock.  It  is  a  strong,  sturdy,  self-contained  element,  which  has 
still  within  itself  the  seeds  of  possible  readjustment  and  increased 
prosperity.  It  is  quite  consistent  with  the  American  character 
that  the  rather  discouraging  population  tendencies  above  outlined 
have  been  carefully  considered  by  the  thoughtful  citizens  of  the 
state  with  a  view  to  improvement  of  conditions  and  future  growth 
along  progressive  Unes. 

It  has  happened  that  by  their  small  increase  in  population,  or  by 
actual  decrease,  shown  at  the  Fourteenth  Census,  the  three  north- 
em  New  England  states  have  been  among  those  inviting  separate 
analysis  in  these  pages.  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  and  Vermont  con- 
tain in  reality  a  distinct  population  class.  They  have  contributed 
mightily  of  the  highest  quality  of  manhood  and  womanhood  to  the 
upbuilding  of  the  Nation,  not  only  to  the  industrial  East  but  to  the 
agricultural  Middle  West  and  the  Far  West.  These  three  northern 
states  have  thus  accomplished  a  great  work  in  national  develop- 
ment. All  three  possess  a  severe  climate  and  limited  natural  re- 
sources compared  with  many  other  states.  Therefore,  because  of 
the  attractions  of  mild  climate  and  rich  soil  to  be  found  elsewhere 
in  the  United  States,  the  northern  New  England  states  have 
had  rather  restricted  opportunity  for  agricultural  and  industrial 
development,  so  that  it  is  not  remarkable  that  as  the  years  have 
passed  they  have  tended  to  falter  in  population  growth. 

Scrutiny  of  population  changes  in  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  and 
Vermont,  as  revealed  in  their  minor  civil  divisions,  leads  to  the 
presumption  that  somewhat  the  same  economic  conditions  prevail 
throughout  northern  New  England.  The  similarity,  indeed,  of 
rural  decline  throughout  the  north  country  suggests  that  the 
problems  of  agriculture,  manufacturing,  transportation,  and 
general  business  may  be  more  or  less  alike  in  Maine,  New  Hamp- 
shire and  Vermont,  and  that  the  task  of  meeting  phases  of  these 


STATES  SHOWING  SLIGHT  INCREASE,  OR  DECREASE. 


53 


problems  which  tend  to  restrict  population  growth  and  retard 
material  progress  might  well  be  made  the  subject  of  concerted 
action. 

No  statistical  measurement  of  changes  which  have  occurred  in 
these  three  states  would  be  complete,  however,  without  taking  into 
consideration  their  increasing  popularity  as  centers  of  summer  rest 
and  recreation.  In  these  respects  they  are  almost  unique,  so  that 
by  1920  both  population  and  agriculture  were  being  distinctly 
influenced  by  the  magnitude  of  the  resort  interest.  The  rapid 
growth  of  great  cities,  not  only  in  the  eastern  but  in  the  central 
states,  seems  likely  to  increase  the  numbers  of  persons  annually 
seeking  the  Maine  coast  and  woods  and  the  mountains  of  New 
Hampshire  and  Vermont.  Entertainment  of  summer  visitors 
has  not  been  classed  as  an  occupation,  and  would  hardly  be  so 
regarded  elsewhere,  but  in  these  three  states  it  can  not  be  over- 
looked as  an  important  means  of  support  for  many  of  the  resident 
population. 

Nevada.' 


The  state  of  Nevada  nearly  doubled  in  population  from  1900 
to  1910,  but  it  reported  a  decrease  of  5.5  per  cent  (81,785  to 
77,407)  from  1 9 10  to  1920.  This  was  not  the  first  decrease  of 
population  which  the  state  had  experienced.  In  1880  Nevada 
had  a  population  of  62,266,  but  returns  for  the  censuses  of  1890 
and  1900  showed  decreases  of  23.9  and  10.6  percent,  respectively. 


Tabi^E  10. 


-Increase  or  Decrease  of  Popui^ation  in  Nevada; 
1860-1920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 

INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  (  — ) 
SINCE  PRECEDING  CENSUS. 

CENSUS  YEAR. 

INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  (— ) 
SINCE  PRECEDING  CENSUS. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

1870 

35.634 

19.775 

-14,911 

519-7 

46.5 

-23-9 

1000 

—  5,020 
39.540 
-4,468 

1880 

IQIO 

93-4 
-5-5 

1800 

1920      .    .   . 

Population  changes  in  Nevada  have  followed  very  closely  the 
fluctuations  in  the  mining  industry  of  the  state.  The  mining  of 
precious  metals  reached  a  high  state  of  prosperity  in  the  late  seven- 
ties and  then  began  to  decline.  Population  showed  correspond- 
ing fluctuations.  New  gold  and  silver  deposits  were  discovered 
in  1900,  and  as  a  result  the  population  between  that  year  and 


54 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


1 910  nearly  doubled.  The  production  of  precious  metals  from 
these  new  fields,  however,  reached  its  peak  in  the  year  1915,  when 
11,883,700  ounces  were  mined,  but  production  dropped  to  4,659,- 
100  in  1 91 9.  History  is  apparently  repeating  itself,  for  this  de- 
cline in  one  of  the  two  major  industries  of  the  state  since  191 5, 
coupled  with  the  disturbances  which  doubtless  arose  from  the 
war,  so  reduced  the  population  as  to  record  an  actual  net  de- 
crease for  the   lo-year  period. 

Nevada — Increasb  or  Decrease  in  Population  op  Counties: 
1900-1920. 


'         '  increase  both  1910  and  1920 
r)jcrcase  1910;  increase  1920 

Decrease  1920;  increase  1910 

BS9  Decrease  both  1910  and  1920 


Nevada,  the  sixth  largest  state  in  the  Union,  consists  in  the  main 
of  mountain  and  desert.  Because  of  extreme  aridity,  agriculture 
can  be  carried  on  for  the  most  part  only  by  means  of  irrigation. 
Crops  so  raised  show  very  high  per  acre  returns,  but  the  state  con- 
tinues to  depend  principally  upon  its  mineral  wealth.     Extending 


STATES  SHOWING  SLIGHT  INCREASE,  OR  DECREASE.         55 

from  central  California  southeast  along  the  dividing  line  between 
that  state  and  Nevada,  and  thence  past  the  Colorado  River  into 
Arizona,  is  one  of  the  richest  mineral  belts  in  the  world. 

The  exceptional  population  problems  in  Nevada  are  made  more 
evident  by  analysis  of  county  returns.  There  are  two  counties, 
Eureka  and  Storey,  which  have  returned  decreases  for  two  dec- 
ades. These  are  the  two  counties  in  which  the  early  discoveries 
of  rich  mineral  deposits  were  made.  The  Comstock  lode  with 
the  Great  Bonanza  mine  was  located  in  Storey  County,  and  by 
1882  the  mines  in  Eureka  County  had  produced  over  $60,000,000  of 
precious  metals.  These  two  counties,  which  together  contributed 
nearly  40  per  cent  of  the  state's  entire  population  in  1880,  have  both 
shown  decreases  at  each  of  the  foiu-  censuses  since  that  year,  until 
in  1920  they  contributed  but  3  per  cent  of  the  entire  population  of 
the  state. 

The  other  great  mining  fields  in  Nevada  were  not  discovered 
until  1900,  and  their  growth  is  reflected  by  the  figm-es  of  the  1910 
census.  In  1900  rich  deposits  of  gold  and  silver  were  discovered 
in  Nye  County,  and  the  Tonopah  district  grew  to  4,000  inhabitants 
in  three  years.  In  1902  the  Goldfield  district  in  Esmeralda 
County  was  opened  up,  and  8,000  inhabitants  entered  in  a  period 
of  three  years.  These  were  followed  by  the  discovery  of  gold  in 
Bullfrog  and  Manhattan,  both  districts  of  Nye  County.  In  1907 
Esmeralda  and  Nye  led  in  gold  production,  and  Nye  and  Churchill 
in  silver.  But  from  1910  to  1920  both  of  these  counties  showed  an 
actual  decrease  in  population.  Apparently  they  are  following  the 
tendencies  of  those  other  areas  which  prospered  during  the  earlier 
mining  period.  The  known  gold  fields  appear  to  be  becoming 
exhausted,  and  a  diversion  of  the  population  in  such  locahties  to 
new  regions  naturally  is  taking  place. 

Agricultural  changes  in  Nevada  have  shown  no  resemblance  to 
the  fluctuations  which  have  attended  mining.  Systematic  increase 
in  irrigation  during  the  decade  resulted  in  an  increase  in  the  number 
of  farms  in  Nevada  from  2,689  to  3,163,  or  17.6  per  cent.  Indeed, 
the  counties  which  are  best  suited  to  agriculture  showed  few  popu- 
lation decreases  from  1910  to  1920.  Washoe,  WTiite  Pine,  and 
Lyon  reported  increases,  and  Douglas  and  Elko  showed  but  slight 
decreases. 

In  1920,  48.7  per  cent  of  all  persons  born  within  the  state  of 
Nevada,  and  still  alive,  were  residing  outside  the  state  boundaries. 
This  figiu-e  is  higher  than  that  for  any  other  state  in  the  Union. 


56 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


The  history  of  Nevada  as  it  is  read  in  the  decennial  population 
returns  seems  to  indicate  that  in  the  increasing  importance  of 
agriculture,  with  the  invariable  accompaniment  of  stability,  lies 
the  solution  of  the  problem  of  population  decline. 

Mississippi. 

From  19 lo  to  1920  Mississippi  showed  a  decrease  in  population 
from  1,797,114  to  1,790,618,  or  four-tenths  of  i  per  cent. 

Table  ii. — Increase  or  Decrease  of  Population  in  Mississippi: 

1800-1920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 

INCREASE  OR  Di;CREASE  (— ) 
SINCE  PRECEDING  CENSUS. 

CENSUS  YEAR. 

INCREASE  OR  DECRE.\SE  (  — ) 
SINCE   PRECEDING   CENSUS. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

181O 

1820 

31.502 

35.096 

61,173 

239.030 

230,875 

184,779 

356-0 
87.0 
81. 1 

175-0 
61.5 
30.5 

i 
1870 36,617 

1880 ■301  -ffye 

4.6 

36.7 
14.0 
20.3 

15-8 
-0.4 

18^0 

1890 

IQOO 

158,003 
261,670 

245.844 
—  6,496 

1840 

l8i;o 

1910 

IQ20 

i860 

The  principal  factor  in  bringing  about  the  decline  in  popu- 
lation shown  in  1920  was  the  migration  northward  of  large  num- 
bers of  Negroes  during  the  war.  In  1910  Negroes  contributed 
to  the  state's  population  1,009,487,  or  56.2  per  cent.  In  1920 
the  number  of  Negroes  within  the  state  was  935,184,  or  52.2  per 
cent  of  the  total  population.  The  Negro  population  of  Mississippi 
decreased  by  approximately  74,000  during  the  decade.  The 
whites,  on  the  other  hand,  increased  68,000,  but  this  increase  was 
not  quite  sufficient  to  offset  the  decline  in  Negro  population. 

The  great  demand  for  labor  in  the  North  served  as  an  over- 
whelming inducement  to  the  Negro  farmers  and  farm  workers 
to  leave  their  traditional  southern  environment  and  go  to  the  North 
to  earn,  to  them,  almost  incredible  wages.  Special  trains  ran 
between  points  in  Mississippi  and  northern  ihdustrial  centers, 
taking  on  the  appearance  of  holiday  excursions.  Many  localities, 
recognizing  their  dependence  upon  Negro  labor,  took  steps  to 
prevent  action  on  the  part  of  any  individual  which  might  encourage 
the  migration  of  the  Negroes.  This  was  only  partially  successful. 
It  has  been  estimated  that  during  the  decade  there  was  a  net 
migration  of  more  than  400,000  Negroes  from  the  South  to  the 
North  and  West.     In  consequence,  while  the  rate  of  increase  for 


STATES  SHOWING  SLIGHT  INCREASE,  OR  DECREASE.         57 

the  Negroes  in  Mississippi  during  the  decade  1900  to  1910  had 
been  exactly  equal  to  the  rate  of  increase  for  Negroes  in  the 
entire  country,  the  Fourteenth  Census  revealed  a  marked  change. 
The  state  of  Mississippi  showed  an  actual  decrease  in  Negro 
population  of  7.4  per  cent,  while  the  total  Negro  population  of  the 
United  States  increased  6.5  per  cent. 

Although  the  decrease  in  the  total  population  of  Mississippi 
was  due  to  Negro  migration,  the  whites  also  showed  a  decided 
slackening  in  rate  of  increase  during  the  decade.  From  1900  to 
1 910  the  rate  of  increase  for  native  whites  in  the  entire  Nation 
was  20.8  per  cent.  The  corresponding  figure  for  the  state  of 
Mississippi  was  22.6,  somewhat  above  the  national  figure. 
From  1 910  to  1920,  however,  the  Nation's  rate  of  increase  for 
native  white  population  was  18.6  per  cent,  but  that  for  Mississippi 
fell  to  8.9  per  cent.  This  reduction  in  the  rate  of  increase  for 
native  whites  to  a  point  far  below  the  rate  for  the  entire  country 
is  a  factor  which  must  also  be  considered  in  any  adequate  anaylsis 
of  the  causes  for  the  decrease  of  population  in  the  state.  No 
such  reduction  appeared  in  the  neighboring  states  of  Alabama  or 
Georgia,  both  of  which  states  returned  increases  of  native  whites 
corresponding  very  closely  to  that  for  the  entire  Nation. 

An  examination  of  the  county  figures  for  ]\Iississippi  shows  that 
the  population  reduction  was  not  localized.  In  most  of  the  82 
counties  of  the  state  the  rate  of  increase  from  1910  to  1920  was 
lower  than  that  for  the  previous  decade,  or  the  rate  of  decrease 
was  greater,  or  an  increase  between  1900  and  1910  was  followed 
by  a  decrease  during  the  next  decade. 

The  northeastern,  southeastern,  and  central  northwestern  areas 
of  the  state  registered  considerable  increases  in  population. 
Of  these  three  districts,  the  northeastern  and  southeastern  are 
predominantly  white,  but  in  the  northwestern  district  over  80 
per  cent  of  the  population  consists  of  Negroes. 

Apparently  the  migration  of  Negroes  drew  especially  those 
from  the  upland  regions  of  the  state.  Most  of  the  counties  in  the 
northwestern  area,  where  the  larger  part  of  the  Negro  population 
was  concentrated — being  an  alluvial  plain  and  unusually  fertile — 
showed  actual  increases  in  Negro  population. 

It  is  probable  that  since  the  taking  of  the  Fourteenth  Census 
some  of  the  Negro  migrants  have  returned  to  the  South.  This  is 
to  be  expected,  because  the  unusual  demands  for  labor  in  northern 
cities  arising  from  war  conditions  have  ceased.     Such  a  return 


58 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


current  will,  of  course,  exaggerate  the  normal  increase  in  the  Negro 
population  of  the  Southern  states  concerned  during  the  decade 
1920  to  1930,  but  may  thereby  advance  them  to  approximatelv 
the  position  which  they  would  have  reached  without  any  such  dis- 
turbance, although  it  is  to  be  expected  that  some  portion  of 
this  Negro  migration  will  remain  in  the  North. 


Mississippi —Incrbasb  or  Decrease  in  Population  op  Counties: 

1900-1920. 


L--J  Increase  both  1910  and  1920 
Decrease  1910 ;  increase  1920 

Decrease  1920;  increase  1910 

BZBI  Decrease  both  1910  and  1920 


STATES  SHOWING  SLIGHT  INCREASE,  OR  DECREASE. 


59 


REPLACEMENT  OF   DECREASE    BY    INCREASE. 
Iowa. 

At  the  census  of  1910  the  state  of  Iowa  achieved  some  promi- 
nence as  the  only  state  in  the  Union  recording  a  decrease  in  popula- 
tion. In  1920,  however,  the  slight  decrease  shown  at  the  previous 
census  was  replaced  by  a  moderate  increase.  This  record  of 
decline  and  recovery  possesses  both  interest  and  significance. 

From  1840,  in  which  year  the  state  was  first  enumerated,  until 
1 9 10  the  population  of  Iowa  showed  a  declining  percentage  of 
increase  from  census  to  census,  the  rates  since  18S0  ha\'ing  been 
below  those  for  the  country  as  a  whole. 

The  population  of  the  state  in  1900  was  2,231,853,  and  in  1910 
it  was  2,224,771,  a  decrease  of  7,082,  or  three-tenths  of  i  per  cent. 


Table  12. 


-Increase  or  Decrease  of  Population  in  Iowa: 
1840-1920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 

INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  ( — ) 
SINCE  PRECEDING  CENSUS. 

1 

INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  (  — 
SINCE  PRRCeomG  CENSUS. 
rRN.-^irs;  year. 

Number.            Per  cent. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

1850 

i860 

1 
149,102     1       345-8 
482 , 699           2  5 1 . 1 
519,107             76.9 
430.595     '        36.1 

1 

1890 287,683 

1900 319.556 

1910 —7,083 

17-7 
16.7 

1870       

-0-3 
8.1 

1880 

1020 i7o,2';o 

The  returns  for  1920,  therefore,  proved  of  great  interest.  The 
Fourteenth  Census  recorded  the  population  as  2,404,021,  an 
increase  of  179,250,  or  8.1  per  cent,  over  the  previous  census. 
Instead  of  having  the  lowest  rate  of  increase,  Iowa  then  outranked 
in  this  respect  9  other  states,  including  the  3  that  showed  decreases. 

The  slight  decrease  of  the  decade  1900  to  19 10  combined  the 
effects  of  a  sluggish  growth  of  cities  and  an  actual  decrease  of  pop- 
ulation in  the  rural  area.  It  will  be  remembered  that  at  this  pe- 
riod immense  tracts  of  land  in  western  Canada  were  being  made 
available  for  settlement.  For  these  10  years  the  rate  of  urban 
increase  in  Iowa  was  19.9  per  cent,  as  compared  with  34.8  per  cent 
for  the  total  urban  population  of  the  country.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  total  rural  population  of  the  country  increased  11.2  per  cent, 
while  that  of  Iowa  actually  decreased  7.2  per  cent.'     This  rate  of 

'  These  percentages  are  based  on  the  population,  in  1910,  of  the  areas  treated  as 
urban  and  asriu-al,  respectively,  in  1020. 


60 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


decrease  in  rural  population  exceeded  that  for  any  other  state 
during  the  decade.  Since  rural  population  constituted  more  than 
two-thirds  of  the  entire  population  of  the  state,  its  considerable 
decrease  was  sufficient  to  offset  the  increase  in  the  urban  popula- 
tion and  to  result  in  a  decrease  for  the  state  as  a  whole. 

Both  the  urban  and  rural  rates  for  Iowa  recorded  great  improve- 
ment in  the  decade  1 910  to  1920.  The  rural  population  of  the  state 
increased  seven-tenths  of  i  per  cent,  while  the  Nation 's  rate  had 
dropped  to  an  increase  of  5.4  per  cent.  Instead  of  leading  the 
other  states  in  rural  decrease  Iowa  recorded  an  actual,  though 
slight,  gain  in  the  population  of  the  territory  treated  as  rural  in 
1920.  On  the  other  hand,  the  rate  of  urban  growth  increased  to  a 
considerable  degree.  From  the  figure  for  the  previous  decade,  19.9 
per  cent,  it  increased  to  24  per  cent,  while  that  for  the  entire 
country  fell  from  34.8  to  25.7  per  cent.^  Hence  the  actual  gain  in 
the  population  of  the  state  was  due  to  urban  development.  The 
largest  four  cities,  Des  Moines,  Sioux  City,  Davenport,  and  Cedar 
Rapids,  increased  from  an  aggregate  population  of  about  210,000 
to  300,000.  The  total  urban  increase  was  169,000,  and  the  rural 
increase  about  10,000. 

Iowa — Increase  or  Decrease  in  PoPULAtioN  of  Counties: 

1900-1920. 


'  I  Increase  both  1910  and  1920 
V////A  Decrease  1910 ;iucrtase  1920 
^388  Decrease  1920;  increase  1910 
EBB  Decrease  both  1910  and  1920 


'  These  percentages  are  based  on  the  population,  in  1910,  of  the  areas  treated  as 
urban  and  as  rural,  respectively,  in  1920. 


STATES  SHOWING  SLIGHT  INCREASE,  OR  DECREASE.        61 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  change  in  population  by  counties. 
During  the  decade  1890  to  1900  every  county  but  one  within  the 
state  increased  in  inhabitants.  During  the  decade  1900  to  19 10 
only  28  out  of  99  counties  continued  to  increase,  the  remaining  71 
showing  positive  decreases.  During  the  lo-year  period  19 10  to 
1920,  72  counties  increased  while  27  decreased.  Although  the 
counties  which  decreased  during  the  decade  1900  to  19 10  were 
widely  distributed  throughout  the  state,  those  which  decreased 
between  19 10  to  1920  were  located  along  the  Mississippi  River 
boundary  or  in  the  southern  part  of  the  state. 

The  record  of  Iowa  is  of  especial  significance  because  it  is  in 
many  ways  the  leading  agricultural  state  in  the  United  States. 
The  fertility  of  its  28,607,000  acres  of  improved  farm  land  is  such 
that  the  value  of  the  total  farm  crop  for  the  state  is  greater  than 
that  for  any  other  state  save  Texas.  The  total  value  of  such  land 
alone  represents  a  sum  greater  than  that  for  any  other  state.  This 
agricultural  development  is  not  a  recent  one,  like  that  of  the  more 
western  states,  for  Iowa  had  a  population  of  well  over  a  million  in 
1870,  and  in  1900  the  density  was  40  persons  per  square  mile. 


V. 

COUNTY  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE. 

Hitherto  analysis  of  increase  of  population  has  dealt  in  the 
main  with  the  Nation,  tlie  9  geographic  divisions,  and  the  48 
states.  Broad  geographic  areas  permit,  for  the  most  part,  only- 
interesting  generalizations.  Obviously,  as  the  inquiry  advances  to 
the  county,  the  comparison  of  changes  during  the  decade  becomes 
much  more  signiJQcant.  No  standard  of  county  size,  however, 
exists.  Counties  vary  widely  in  area  in  different  states  and 
within  the  same  state.  There  were  3,065  counties  in  the  United 
States  in  1920,  and  the  average  size  was  approximately  1,000 
square  miles.  Even  in  New  England,  however,  the  county 
areas  differ  greatly,  the  average  being  1,868  square  miles  in  Maine 
and  only  574  in  Massachusetts.  In  diminutive  Rhode  Island, 
5  counties  are  crowded  into  1,067  square  miles,  with  an  average 
of  213  for  each  county.  In  California  the  average  size  per  county 
is  2,684  square  miles;  in  Oregon,  2,656;  in  Iowa,  561;  in  Georgia, 
379;  and  in  Texas,  1,037. 

In  general  the  Southern  states  tend  to  division  into  many 
counties  and  hence  to  small  county  areas,  but  there  are  sharp 
exceptions.  Georgia  has  155  counties  with  59,000  square  miles, 
but  the  adjoining  state  of  South  Carolina,  with  half  the  area, 
has  only  46  counties. 

Variation  in  size,  while  interesting — illustrating,  for  example, 
the  independence  of  the  states  in  deciding  internal  affairs  for 
themselves — ^really  possesses  no  special  significance.  The  essen- 
tial fact  is  the  subdivision  of  the  entire  area  of  the  48  states  into 
more  than  3,000  parts. 

Except  in  the  old  settled  states,  county  boundaries  have  been 
subject  to  continual  change.  Obviously  these  changes  were  more 
general  and  marked  at  earlier  censuses,  so  that  it  is  extremely 
difficult  to  secure  even  rough  comparability  for  a  considerable 
period  of  time.  In  Table  50  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  follow 
the  changes  which  took  place  during  the  70-year  period  from 
1850  to  1920,  the  comparison  being  limited  to  the  first,  tliird,  fifth, 
and  seventh  decades  of  tliis  period.  These  statistics  are  sum- 
marized in  Table  13,  on  the  opposite  page. 
62 


COUNTY  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE. 


63 


Table  13. — Number  of  Counties,  Number  Decreasing  in  Popula- 
tion, AND  Aggregate  Population  of  Decreasing  Counties,  with 
Per  Cent  of  United  States  Total:  1S60,  1880,  1900,  and  1920.^ 


CENSUS  YEAR. 


i860 
1880 
1900 
1920 


POPULATION. 


Total  for 
United  States. 


31,443,321 

50.155.783 

75.994.575 

105,710,620 


Aggregate  in 
decreasing 
counties. 


2,201,019 

I. 711.453 

5.823,383 

18,527.979 


Total 
number. 


2,078 

2.S92 
2.836 
3.065 


Number 
decreasing 

since 
preceding 

census. 


136 

82 

368 

1,086 


Per  cent 

which 

population 

in  decreasing 

counties 

formed  of 

total  for 

United 

States. 


7.0 

3-4 

7-7 

17-5 


'  In  preparing  this  table,  it  has  been  necessary  in  certain  cases,  in  order  to  avoid  treating  as  decreasing 
counties  those  in  which  decreases  in  population  were  due  to  reductions  in  area,  to  combine  two  or  more 
counties  whose  areas  were  increased  or  reduced  during  the  decade  by  transfers  of  territory  from  one  to 
another,  and  in  other  cases  to  combine  counties  formed  during  the  decade  with  those  from  whose  original 
territory  they  were  formed. 

The  average  population  per  county  in  the  United  States,  as 
shown  by  the  census,  was  15,132  in  i860,  19,350  in  1880,  26,796 
in  1900,  and  34,490  in  1920.  The  total  number  of  counties  in  the 
United  States  increased  47.5  per  cent  from  i860  to  1920,  in  part 
by  subdivision  and  in  part  by  organization  of  new  counties. 
During  the  period  of  60  years  here  included,  the  population  of  the 
Nation  considerably  more  than  trebled,  while  the  average  popu- 
lation per  county,  affected  by  increases  in  the  number  of  counties 
due  to  the  formation  of  new  counties  from  older  ones  or  from  un- 
organized territory,  somewhat  more  than  doubled.  Of  real  signifi- 
cance is  the  wide  view  which  this  table  permits  of  the  movement 
of  population  into  and  out  of  the  2,000  counties,  increasing  to  3,000 
during  the  period  under  consideration,  in  a  broad  sense  seeking 
for  larger  advantages  in  agriculture,  mining,  or  manufacturing.  In 
i860,  just  before  the  beginning  of  the  Civil  War  and  in  a  period 
when  much  of  the  national  development,  with  relation  both  to  the 
soil  and  to  industry,  was  yet  to  be  undertaken,  7  per  cent  of  the 
population  resided  in  counties  decreasing  in  population.  These 
counties,  curiously  enough,  were  located  principally  in  the  South  and 
Southwest,  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  they  reflected  the  read- 
justments which  foreshadowed  the  Civil  War,  such  as  the  move- 
ment of  slave  population  from  certain  states,  as  Virginia,  to  other 
states  farther  south.  Even  in  New  England,  however,  at  that 
early  date  the  proportion  of  population  in  decreasing  counties 
was  larger  than  the  average  for  the  United  States,  rising  in  Ver- 
mont to  60.5  per  cent. 


64  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

In  1880,  out  of  approximately  2,600,  but  82  counties,  contain- 
ing an  aggregate  of  only  1,711,000  population,  or  3.4  per  cent  of 
the  entire  population  of  the  Nation,  showed  decline.  Thus 
scarcely  more  than  one- thirtieth,  or  proportionally  but  a  little 
more  than  one-half  as  many  as  at  the  census  of  i860,  were 
comprised  in  the  area  of  decreasing  population.  Here  again 
New  England  showed  a  much  larger  percentage  of  population  in 
the  area  of  decrease  than  the  other  states,  while  for  the  Southern 
states  the  percentages  were  almost  negligible.  In  the  South,  how- 
ever, the  increases  are  exaggerated  and  the  decreases  are  under- 
stated for  the  decade  1870  to  1880  as  a  result  of  the  defective 
enumeration  of  1870  in  that  section  of  the  country. ' 

In  1900  there  appeared  a  marked  increase  in  the  number  of 
counties  showing  decline.  The  population  in  that  year  residing  in 
the  368  decreasing  counties  represented  nearly  8  per  cent  of  the 
total  for  the  country  and  numbered  nearly  6,000,000.  The  unen- 
viable prominence  of  New  England  disappeared  at  this  census 
and  was  replaced  by  that  of  the  West  North  Central  group  of 
states,  which  contributed  about  one-third  of  all  the  declining 
counties.  In  1920,  however,  the  most  marked  change  occurred. 
One-third  of  all  counties  in  the  United  States  showed  declines. 
These  counties  comprised  more  than  one-sixth  of  the  entire  popu- 
lation, or  17.5  per  cent.  The  areas  most  directly  involved  were 
the  Northern  Central  states  and  the  Southwest,  and  here  appears 
definitely  for  the  first  time  that  influence  which  is  to  be  referred  to 
so  frequently  in  this  analysis,  the  general  effect  of  the  movement 
of  population  from  the  rural  districts  to  the  urban  centers. 

Table  14,  which  follows,  has  been  prepared  to  make  clear  the 
trend  of  county  population  decrease  when  two  great  sections  of 
the  Nation  are  contrasted — the  North  and  West,  considered 
together,  and  the  South. 

*  "The  census  of  1890  shows,  in  the  Northwest,  many  counties  in  which  there  is  an 
absolute  or  a  relative  decrease  of  population.  These  states  have  been  sending  farmers 
to  advance  the  frontier  on  the  plains,  and  have  themselves  begun  to  turn  to  intensive 
farming  and  to  manufacture.  A  decade  before  this,  Ohio  had  shown  the  same  transi- 
tion stage.  Thus  the  demand  for  land  and  tlie  love  of  wilderness  freedom  drew  the 
frontier  ever  onward.  *  *  *  Mobility  of  population  is  death  to  localism,  and  the 
western  frontier  worked  irresistibly  in  unsettling  population.  The  efTcct  reached 
back  from  tlie  frontier  and  affected  profoundly  tlie  Atlantic  coast  and  even  the  Old 
World." — Turner,  The  Frontier  in  American  History,  pp.  22,  30. 


COUNTY  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE. 


65 


Table  14. — Number  and  Aggregate  Population  of  Counties  or 
Equivalent  Divisions  Whose  Population  Decreased  During 
Preceding  Decade,  for  the  North  and  West  in  Comparison  with 
THE  South:  i860,  1880,  1900,  and  1920. 


Total 
population. 

Total 
number  of 
counties. 

COtTNTIES  DBCRBASINO 
SINCE  PRECEDING  CENSUS. 

Percent 
which 
popula- 

CENSUS YEAR  AND  SECTION. 

Number. 

Aggregate 
population. 

tion  of 
decreas- 
ing 
counties 
formed 
of  total 
popula- 
tion. 

i860. 

United  States 

31,443,321 
20,309,960 
11,133,361 

50.155.783 
33,639,215 
16,516,568 

75.994.575 
51.471,048 

24.523.527 

105,710,620 
72,584,817 
33,125,803 

2,078 
1,078 
1,000 

2.592 
1.389 
1,203 

2,836 
1,560 
1,276 

3.065 
1,674 
1. 391 

136 
41 
95 

82 
72 
10 

368 

284 

84 

1,086 
627 
459 

2,201,019 

991,662 

1.209,357 

1. 7". 453 

1.589.033 

122,420 

5.823.383 
4.701.590 
1,121,793 

18.527.979 
11,490,508 

7.037.471 

7.0 

4.9 
10.9 

3-4 
4-7 
0.7 

7-7 
9.1 
4.6 

17-5 
15.8 

31.2 

The  North  and  West. . . 
The  South 

1880. 
United  States 

The  North  and  West. . . 
The  South 

1900. 
United  States 

The  North  and  West . . . 
The  South 

1920. 
United  States 

The  North  and  West. . . 
The  South 

In  1920  the  population  of  decreasing  counties  was  propor- 
tionally small  in  the  North  and  West  and  large  in  the  South. 
This  showing  corresponded  to  that  of  i860.  Twenty  years  later, 
in  1880,  the  decrease  was  almost  all  to  be  foimd  in  the  North  and 
West ;  ^  and  in  1900,  while  it  appeared  to  some  extent  in  the  South, 
the  percentage  for  that  section  was  only  half  as  great  as  that  shown 
by  the  remainder  of  the  country. 

It  is  probable  that  the  rough  similarity  of  the  conditions  shown 
by  this  table  for  i860  and  for  1920  arose  from  the  shifting  of 
Negro  population,  though  this  shifting  was  due  to  radically  dif- 
ferent causes.  During  the  decade  1850  to  i860  to  some  degree 
the  decreases  arose  from  the  transfer  of  slaves,  while  during  1910 
to  1920  they  were  caused  by  voluntary  migration  in  search  of 
more  lucrative  employment. 

'  As  ah-eady  explained  (p.  64),  the  decrease  in  the  South  during  the  decade  1870  to 
1880  was  understated  as  a  result  of  the  defective  enumeration  of  1870. 
107°— 22 5 


66  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

County  decreases  of  60  years  ago  represented  but  a  small  frac- 
tion of  the  land  area;  in  1920,  however,  the  aggregate  of  areas 
showing  decreases  was  900,000  square  miles,  or  nearly  one-third 
of  all  the  national  domain.  In  1 1  states  the  area  of  decrease  ex- 
ceeded one-half  of  the  total  area,  and  in  2  of  the  1 1  it  exceeded 
three-quarters  of  the  state  area,  Missouri  showing  decreases  in 
78.2  per  cent  of  the  total  area,  Delaware  in  77.9  per  cent,  Nevada 
in  73  per  cent,  Indiana  in  68.4  per  cent,  Vermont  in  60.8  per  cent, 
and  New  York  in  61.2  per  cent.  Twenty-two  states  reported  one- 
third  or  more  of  their  area  as  decreasing  in  population. 

Missouri,  among  all  the  states,  presents  perhaps  the  most 
striking  illustration  of  county  decrease.  In  1920  almost  four-fifths 
of  the  area  of  the  state,  considered  by  counties,  decreased  in  popu- 
lation. As  the  factors  which  influenced  such  extensive  declines  in 
Missouri  undoubtedly  were  influential  elsewhere,  it  will  be  profita- 
ble to  consider  in  some  detail  the  changes  which  occurred  in  that 
state,  and  which  thus  may  be  accepted  as  typical  of  those  occur- 
ring in  states  adjoining  or  resembling  it. 

DECREASING   COUNTIES   IN   MISSOURI. 

Missouri  had  a  population  in  1920  of  over  3,000,000,  a  figure  ap- 
proximately equaling  that  of  California.  Among  the  states  west 
of  the  Mississippi  it  was  exceeded  in  population  only  by  Texas. 
Since  the  area  of  the  state  is  by  no  means  as  great  as  that  of  most 
of  the  Western  states,  the  density  of  population,  which  was  49.5 
persons  per  square  mile  in  1920,  was  greater  than  that  for  any 
other  state  west  of  the  Mississippi.  Perhaps  in  this  very  fact 
lies  much  of  the  explanation  of  the  recent  retardation  of  the  popu- 
lation growth  of  Missouri.  Since  1870  its  rate  of  population 
increase  has  been  less  than  that  for  the  country  as  a  whole — the 
unusually  small  rates  of  the  last  two  decades,  namely,  6  per  cent 
and  3.4  per  cent,  being  of  particular  note.  Its  ranking  of  forty- 
fifth  among  the  48  states  in  terms  of  population  growth  for  the 
decade  1900  to  19 10  was  but  little  bettered  during  the  last  decade, 
when  it  ranked  forty-fourth. 

Missouri  has  114  counties  and  one  independent  city,  St.  Louis. 
Of  these,  89  decreased  in  population  in  1920.  Of  the  114  coun- 
ties, 66  have  no  urban  population  whatsoever.  That  is,  in  66  of 
the  114  counties,  or  57.9  per  cent,  there  is  no  city,  town,  or  village 
of  2,500  or  more  inhabitants.  Of  the  remaining  48  counties,  41 
have  less  than  half  their  population  urban.     In  the  remaining 


COUNTY  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE. 


67 


counties,  but  7  in  number,  more  than  one-half  the  population  is 
urban.  This  would  lead  to  the  belief  that  Missouri  is  an  extremely 
rural  state.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  46.6  per  cent  of  its  population 
is  urban.  Such  a  concentration  is  unusual,  for  in  the  face  of 
the  fact  that  46.6  per  cent  of  the  population  is  urban,  still  only 
6  per  cent  of  the  counties  have  a  majority  of  their  population 
urban.  Approximately  three-fourths  of  this  urban  population  is 
in  three  cities — St.  Louis,  Kansas  City,  and  St.  Joseph.  Moreover, 
Missouri  has  an  unusually  large  number  of  counties. 

Missouri — Increase  or  Decrease  in  Population  op  Counties: 

1900-1920. 


I  I  Increase  both  1910  and  1920 
^^  Decrease  1910;  increase  1920 
tSSSS  Decrease  1920;  increase  1910 
fggg  Decrease  both  1910  and  1920 

In  a  state  which  is  primarily  rural  in  nature,  having  but  a 
few  large  cities,  the  greater  the  number  of  counties  the  less  the 
area  which  each  city  may  dominate,  and,  therefore,  the  greater  the 
representation  of  the  rural  area.  A  combining  of  counties  within 
Missouri,  resulting  in  a  smaller  number,  would  have  little  effect 
upon  the  number  of  urban  counties  but  would  cut  decidedly 
into  the  number  of  rural  counties.     Thus  the  urban  population 


68  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

of  the  state  is  highly  concentrated,  to  such  a  degree,  indeed,  that 
94  per  cent  of  the  counties  have  the  majority  of  their  f>opulation 
rural  and  in  nearly  58  per  cent  the  population  is  wholly  rural. 

Other  states  have  even  greater  urban  concentration  than 
Missouri.  In  South  Dakota  79.4  per  cent  of  the  counties  have  no 
urban  population;  in  North  Dakota,  77.4  per  cent;  in  Nebraska 
and  Virginia,  71  per  cent;  and  in  eight  states  between  60  and  70 
per  cent  of  the  counties  are  wholly  rural.  On  the  other  hand, 
other  states  also  had  a  greater  rural  decrease.  Nevada  lost  9.3  per 
cent  of  its  rural  population;  Maryland,  8.1  per  cent;  New  Hamp- 
shire, 6.2;  and  Indiana,  6.1  per  cent.  But  it  remained  for  Mis- 
souri, high  in  the  Hst  in  each  particular,  so  to  combine  these  two 
factors  as  to  have  the  greatest  area  in  decreasing  counties. 

The  Fourteenth  Census  reported  a  decrease  in  the  rural  popula- 
tion of  Missouri,  from  1910  to  1920,  of  4  per  cent.  This  was  not 
a  new  tendency,  for  the  decade  1900  to  1910  reported  a  corre- 
sponding decrease  of  4.2  per  cent.  Such  a  decrease,  however, 
was  not  Missouri's  problem  alone.  It  proved  to  be  a  general 
tendency  throughout  that  section  of  the  country,  for  Indiana, 
IlUnois,  and  Kansas  showed  similar  decreases. 

NATlONAIv  TENDENCIES   REFLECTED   IN   COUNTY   CHANGES. 

The  extension  of  population  decrease  to  so  many  counties,  the 
wide  distribution  of  areas  involved,  and  the  number  of  instances 
in  which  entire  states  were  seriously  affected  naturally  create 
some  concern.  To  a  Umited  degree,  it  is  justified.  The  county 
decreases  begin  to  register  in  some  detail  the  extent  to  which  men 
and  women  are  turning  from  isolated  farms  or  small  villages  to 
larger  communities.  This  tendency  is  no  recent  development.  It 
was  coincident  with  the  development  of  the  factory  system  and  the 
necessary  concentration  of  man  power  in  small  areas.  The  move- 
ment gained  momentum  steadily  as  wealth,  population,  and  in- 
dustrial activity  increased.  By  1900,  40  per  cent  of  the  popu- 
lation of  the  United  States  Uved  in  cities  having  2,500  inhabitants 
or  more;  by  1910,  45.8  per  cent;  and  by  1920,  51.4  per  cent. 
The  war  greatly  increased  the  tendency  toward  urbanization.' 
There  has  appeared  already  some  evidence  of  subsidence  here 

'  The  growth  of  the  cities  was  reduced  by  emigration  and  the  decline  in  immigra- 
tion, so  that  during  the  last  decade  the  rise  in  the  percentage  urban  was  slightly 
less  than  during  the  decade  1900-1910,  despite  the  increase  in  the  movement  from 
rural  to  urban  communities. 


COUNTY  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE.  69 


and  there,  especially  where  the  tendency  was  of  more  recent 
origin  and  thus  possibly  the  result  of  temporary  war  conditions. 
Another  census  will  begin  to  supply  interesting  statistical  measure- 
ments of  this  reverse  movement  and  of  its  permanence. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  in  all  newly  settled  areas  it  is  the 
American  way  to  rush  in  and  start  boom  communities  without 
much  regard  to  the  ability  of  the  region  itself  to  afford  permanent 
support.  Hence  in  county  returns  at  every  census  signs  of  pop- 
ulation readjustment  have  appeared;  considerable  initial  popula- 
tion here  and  there,  subsidence,  and  later  a  tendency  toward  slow 
increase,  doubtless  on  a  more  solid  basis. 

It  is  unlikely,  in  spite  of  the  rather  general  settlement  of  all 
the  states,  that  the  shifting  and  readjustments  in  newly  developed 
county  areas  are  yet  near  completion.  The  decrease  of  population 
in  26  out  of  77  counties  in  Oklahoma  during  the  last  decade  no 
doubt  illustrated,  in  part,  this  action-and-reaction  tendency. 
It  also  clearly  reflected  the  war  call  toward  the  cities  and  the 
changing  demands  upon  agriculture,  which  for  some  counties 
lessened  and  for  others  increased  the  profitable  production  of  their 
specialties. 

At  the  census  of  1920  the  2,000  counties  which  increased  in 
population  for  the  most  part  included  either  large  cities,  industrial 
areas,  active  mining  developments,  or  rich  agricultural  regions, 
the  products  of  which  continued  to  prove  profitable  or  lent  them- 
selves to  organized  marketing  or  specialization. 

On  the  other  hand,  more  than  i  ,000  counties  declined  in  popu- 
lation. They  either  were  distinctly  rural  or  had  not  natural 
resources  capable  of  affording  the  particular  profits  encouraged 
by  war  operations.  So  it  came  about  that  from  900,000  square 
miles  many  thousands  of  citizens  departed  and  flocked  into  the 
remaining  2,000,000  square  miles  to  contribute  their  numbers 
and  initiative  toward  fiu-ther  increasing  the  prosperity  of  already 
prosperous  areas. 

In  some  cases  the  newcomers  no  doubt  overburdened  the  com- 
munities to  which  they  migrated.  The  next  census  will  then  re- 
cord the  resulting  readjustments.  But  in  general  the  move- 
ment tended  toward  the  further  rapid  development  of  cities  and 
of  the  favored  agricultiu-al  counties,  at  the  expense  of  those 
regions  where  profits  come  more  slowly  and  life  is  harder. 


Ill 

o    o    o 


^  ^  <u 

s  s  s 

o  b  t; 

<U  it  ^ 


g 


70 


71 


72  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

The  general  impression  gained  from  an  analysis,  by  counties,  of 
the  Fourteenth  Census  is  of  a  widespread  movement  from  rural 
and  perhaps  sparseh'^  settled  counties  which  afforded  comparatively 
little  opportunity  for  progress,  not  only  toward  those  counties 
which  were  more  fertile  or  more  attractive  in  other  respects,  but 
also  toward  the  cities  in  which  were  being  produced  in  such 
phenomenal  fashion  commodities  in  response  to  the  insistent 
demands  of  war  or  to  meet  rapidly  increasing  peace-time  demands 
during  a  period  of  unusual  industrial  expansion. 

In  short,  in  one  respect  the  wide  sliifting  of  county  population 
reflected  the  effect  upon  the  national  character  of  the  great  area 
of  the  Republic  and  illustrated  the  typical  American  characteristics 
of  independence  and  restlessness.  Large  numbers  of  people  in 
the  United  States  continually  seek  more  favorable  conditions  of 
life,  and  thus  far  they  have  continued  to  find  opportunity  and 
room  to  experiment  successfully.  In  future  years,  as  the  density 
of  population  increases,  the  shifting  of  any  considerable  number 
of  persons  over  wide  areas  will  necessarily  decrease,  and  men  must 
be  more  contented  with  such  advantages  as  they  already  possess 
or  must  seek  less  settled  lands  beyond  our  borders.  In  1920 
the  lure  of  possible  betterment  of  conditions  was  capable  of  ex- 
pression within  the  Republic;  in  later  years  it  may  not  be. 


VI. 


RURAL  AND  URBAN  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE. 

Analysis  of  population  change  from  1910  to  1920,  as  it  has 
advanced  in  the  preceding  pages  from  the  larger  geographic 
units — the  division  and  the  state — to  the  smaller  one  of  the 
county,  has  developed  increasing  evidence  of  definite  population 
movement.  Throughout  the  Nation  the  tendency  from  country 
to  city,  long  observed  to  be  in  progress,  appears  to  be  increasing. 

Alone  among  the  nations,  the  United  States  has  been  meas- 
ured and  studied  statistically  by  means  of  periodic  census-taking 
since  the  beginning  of  its  existence.  In  consequence,  only  in  the 
United  States  has  been  recorded  accurately  the  extraordinary 
change  known  to  have  taken  place  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  in 
all  nations  resulting  from  the  development  of  industries.  This 
great  economic  change,  first  felt  in  Europe  and  later  in  America, 
took  the  form,  in  general,  of  an  assault,  continuous  and  increas- 
ing for  many  decades,  upon  the  population  of  rural  areas,  with 
corresponding  increase  of  numbers  in  urban  centers. 

Urban  and  Rural,  Population:  1890-1920. 
millions 


60  80  100 


\y/////W//y////>y///////////////^^^^^ 


?BAN  W/////A  RURAL 

Unfortunately,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  measure  urban 
growth  in  Europe,  since  the  enumeration  of  population,  except 
in  Great  Britain  and  France,  has  been  systematic  and  fairly 
accurate  for  only  a  relatively  brief  period.  In  fact,  it  is  difficult 
to  compare  even  the  present  population  of  large  cities  in  all 
European  countries,  since  census  taking  in  some  of  them  may  not 
be  accurate,  and  there  is  no  uniformity  in  the  dates  of  enumeration. 
There  are  in  Europe,  exclusive  of  Russia,  291  cities  having  more 
than  50,000  inhabitants.  Their  aggregate  population  at  the  most 
recent  census  taken  of  each  (ranging  from  191 2  to  1920)  was 
63,279,417.  The  aggregate  population  of  these  cities  formed 
approximately  20  per  cent  of  the  total  population  of  the  countries 
to  which  the  figures  pertain.  In  the  United  States  the  corre- 
sponding percentage  in  1920  was  31. 

73 


74  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

In  the  United  States,  however,  the  statistical  record  is  practi- 
cally complete.  In  1790  this  Nation  was  substantially  all  rural 
in  the  sense  that  no  large  cities  existed.  Industrial  enterprises 
were  unknown.  Almost  the  entire  population  supported  itself 
from  the  soil.  The  largest  city  was  Philadelphia  (including  sub- 
urbs), with  42,000  inhabitants.  One  hundred  and  thirty  years 
later  more  than  one-half  the  Nation's  inhabitants  resided  in  com- 
munities of  2,500  or  more,  and  nearly  one- third  in  cities  of  50,000 
or  more.  In  1790  there  were  but  6  cities  having  8,000  or  more  in- 
habitants; in  1920  the  6  had  multipHed  to  924,  and  the  number 
of  commimities  with  more  than  2,500  inhabitants  was  2,787. 

The  record  of  the  diverging  growth  of  the  rural  and  urban  areas 
of  the  United  States  proves  extremely  interesting  as  it  shows  the 
great  centers  of  population  gathering  momentum  from  decade  to 
decade  and  accumulating  man  power  by  drawing  both  from  the 
rural  areas  and  from  the  great  volume  of  immigration,  to  develop 
manufacturing  enterprises  which  yielded  a  total  value  of  products 
in  19 1 9  exceeding  $60,000,000,000. 

Meantime,  with  much  slower  population  increase  and  with  many 
areas  showing  decreases,  but  aided  by  the  constant  development  of 
labor-saving  agricultural  machinery,  the  rural  areas  have  contrib- 
uted the  necessary  suppHes  of  food  to  maintain  the  more  rapidly  in- 
creasing population  in  urban  centers.  The  tendency  thus  out- 
lined was  greatest  during  the  decade  from  1900  to  1910;  but,  in 
view  of  the  slackening  in  general  population  increase,  it  was  more 
noteworthy  during  the  recent  decade.  War  demands  from  191 4 
to  191 7,  becoming  even  greater  with  the  entrance  of  the  United 
States  into  the  conflict,  stimulated  the  movement  from  country  to 
city  to  such  an  extent  as  to  offset  in  some  measure  the  effects  of 
emigration  and  the  decline  in  immigration,  so  that  the  increase, 
long  under  way,  in  the  urban  proportion  of  the  population  was 
practically  unchecked.  As  recently  as  1880,  only  28.6  per  cent 
of  the  population  was  urban  and  71.4  per  cent  rural.  Rapid 
changes  from  decade  to  decade  left  the  proportions  45.8  per  cent 
urban  and  54.2  per  cent  rural  in  1910,  representing  a  shift  of 
5.8  per  cent  in  the  increase  of  urban  and  decrease  of  rural  since 
1900;  but  between  1910  and  1920  another  transfer  of  5.6  percent 
took  place,  so  that  for  the  first  time  the  census  recorded  more  per- 
sons residing  in  communities  having  2,500  or  more  inhabitants 
than  in  communities  having  less  than  that  number  (51.4  per  cent 
as  compared  with  48.6  per  cent). 


RURAL  AND  URBAN  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE. 


75 


Recalling  again  that  the  national  increase  from  1910  to  1920 
was  13,738,354,  what  proportion  of  this  increase  appeared  in  the 
rural  areas  of  the  Nation,  and  what  proportion  in  the  urban 
areas,  as  classified  by  the  Federal  Census?  The  increases  in  the 
rural  and  urban  population  for  the  decades  1910  to  1920  and  1900 
to  1 910  are  shown  in  the  following  table: 

Table  15. — Increase  of  Rural,  and  Urban  Population  :  1900-1920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 

RURAL. 

URBAN. 

PER  CENT  0* 
INCREASE.  ' 

Total. 

Increase.  '■ 

ToUl. 

Increase.' 

Rural. 

Urban. 

1000 

45,614,142 

49 , 806 , 146 
51,406,017 

1       30,380,433 
42,166,120 
54,304,603 

IQIO 

4,192,004 
I. 599. 871 

11.785.687 
12,138,483 

9.2 
3-2 

38-8 
28.8 

1020 

'  The  increase  figures  in  this  table  are  somewhat  misleading,  since  they  represent  the  growth  of  the  rural 
and  urban  populations,  respectively,  disregarding  the  fact  that  the  growth  of  the  urban  population  took 
place  in  an  increasing  area  while  that  of  the  rural  population  took  place  in  a  decreasing  area.  This  is  be- 
cause, as  their  population  increases,  small  incorporated  places  pass  from  the  rural  to  the  urban  class,  thus 
continually  increasing  the  urban  territory  and  decreasing  the  rural  territory.  The  increase,  during  the 
decade  1910  to  1920,  in  the  population  of  the  total  territory  which  was  treated  as  urban  in  1920  was 
11,111,419,  or  25.7  per  cent;  and  the  increase  during  the  same  decade  in  the  population  of  the  territory 
which  in  1930  was  treated  as  rural  was  2,626,935,  or  5.4  per  cent.  Because  of  a  change  in  the  classification 
of  certain  towns  in  Maine,  Vermont,  and  Connecticut,  no  exactly  comparable  figures  for  the  decade  1900 
to  1910  are  available;  but,  on  the  basis  of  the  former  classification  of  the  towns  in  question,  the  increase 
between  1900  and  1910  in  the  territory  treated  as  urban  in  1910  was  11,013,738,  or  34.8  per  cent;  and  the 
increase  during  the  same  decade  in  the  territory  treated  as  rural  in  1910  was  11. 2  per  cent. 

In  absolute  figures,  the  urban  increase  for  1910  to  1920,  as 
shown  in  Table  15,  in  the  face  of  a  considerable  shrinkage  in 
total  national  increase,  is  greater  than  that  for  1900  to  19 10, 
while  the  rural  increase  during  the  recent  decade  was  less  than 
two-fifths  as  large  as  that  for  the  preceding  one. 

In  considering  the  percentage  of  increase,  lower  for  both  classes 
of  the  population,  the  effect  of  the  slackened  national  growth 
should  not  be  overlooked.  Had  the  population  increased  be- 
tween 1 910  and  1920  at  the  rate  shown  for  1900  to  1910,  the 
increase  of  total  population  in  1920  would  have  been  over 
19,000,000,  instead  of  less  than  14,000,000.  Hence,  with  the  total 
growth  what  it  actually  was,  the  urban  group,  to  have  repeated 
the  increase  of  38.8  per  cent  recorded  for  the  decade  1900  to  1910, 
would  necessarily  have  made  a  numerical  gain  greater  than  the 
total  population  increase  shown  for  the  United  States  in  1920. 
The  percentages,  less  for  both  classes,  reflect  in  the  rural  a  lessen- 
ing of  the  increase  beyond  that  proportionate  to  the  national 
slowing  down,  and  in  the  urban  an  acceleration  of  the  increase 
represented  by  a  larger  absolute  number  than  appeared  in  19 10. 


76  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 

The  census  classification  of  urban  and  rural  is  not  entirely  sat- 
isfactory. Indeed,  no  classification  of  this  subject  has  been 
found  that  meets  all  requirements.  As  population  increases  it 
expands  necessarily  in  two  directions:  it  increases  existing  com- 
munities and  creates  new  ones.  Hence  the  older  towns  and  vil- 
lages tend  constantly  to  pass  the  2,500  limit — which,  according  to 
the  census  classification,  separates  rural  from  urban  communi- 
ties— into  the  urban  class,  while  the  rural  element  (below  2,500) 
is  recruited  by  the  newly  established  communities,  the  increase  of 
small  existing  settlements  which  still  have  fewer  than  2,500  in- 
habitants, and  the  increase  in  the  farm  population.  Thus  the 
units  of  increase  in  the  urban  class  are  comparatively  large  and 
those  in  the  rural  class  must  be  comparatively  small. 

Accepting,  however,  the  classification  as  it  exists,  474  rural 
villages  and  towns  became  urban  communities.  Each  of  them, 
as  long  as  its  population  numbered  2,499  or  less,  was  rural,  but 
as  soon  as  the  total  population  reached  2,500  it  became  urban. 
This  resulted  in  each  case  in  an  actual  subtraction  from  the  rural 
and  addition  to  the  urban  group  of  2,500  persons,  or  a  total  urban 
growth  of  approximately  1,185,000  due  to  accretion.  These  474 
newly  listed  urban  communities  also  added  to  the  urban  popula- 
tion any  subsequent  growth.  The  rate  of  natural  increase  in  urban 
population,  due  to  excess  of  births  over  deaths,  has  been  estimated 
at  approximately  10  per  cent.  This  would  signify  a  growth  of  about 
4,500,000  (allowance  being  made  for  the  natural  increase  within 
the  increment  due  to  accretion  and  migration) ,  which,  added  to  the 
1,185,000  due  to  accretion,  would  give  a  total  of  5,685,000  resulting 
from  these  two  causes.  Subtracting  this  number  from  the  total 
increase  in  urban  population,  approximately  12,140,000,  leaves,  in 
round  figures,  6,450,000  as  the  growth  due  to  migration.  This  ex- 
ternal contribution  consisted  in  part  of  foreign  born  coming  to  the 
country,  especially  during  the  first  half  of  the  decade,  and  in 
greater  measure  of  domestic  migrants,  largely  native  whites  of 
native  parentage  and  Negroes.' 

These  analyses,  however,  are  of  value  principally  in  permitting 
broad  views  of  changes  which,  perhaps,  may  be  termed  economic 
and  which  undeniably  are  occurring.  The  population  of  small 
cities  and  towns,  classed  by  the  census  as  rural,  in  many  instances 

*  The  above  analysis  of  the  growth  of  urban  population  was  suggested  by  Joseph  A. 
Hill,  Assistant  Director  of  the  Census,  in  a  paper,  "Some  Results  of  the  1920  Census  of 
Population,"  prepared  for  the  American  Statistical  Association. 


RURAL  AND  URBAN  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE.  77 

is  increasing;  474  communities,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  actually 
passed  from  the  rural  to  the  urban  class  between  19 10  and  1920. 

The  movement  from  rural  to  urban  continued  to  be  greatest 
in  the  areas  in  which  it  began — the  industrial  Northeastern  and 
North  Central  states.  The  New  England,  Middle  Atlantic,  and 
East  North  Central  groups,  which  together  form  the  great  indus- 
trial section  of  the  Nation,  record  a  rural  population  (for  many- 
years  smaller  than  the  urban)  stationary  from  1900  to  19 10  and 
slightly  decreased  from  19 10  to  1920,  while  all  the  liberal  total 
increase  appears  in  the  urban  class.  In  the  West  North  Central 
group  of  states,  for  the  most  part  agricultural,  the  rural  element 
is  much  larger  than  the  urban,  but  even  here  the  rural  increases 
were  surprisingly  small,  and  nearly  all  the  increase  reported  for 
this  group  was  confined  to  the  lu-ban  class. 

In  the  three  southern  divisions,  which  long  have  been  regarded 
as  constituting  the  rural  stronghold  of  the  Nation,  the  increase 
between  19 10  and  1920  in  the  population  of  the  territory  treated 
as  rural  in  1920  was  approximately  1,400,000,  but  the  urban  in- 
crease was  nearly  2,300,000. 

In  the  Pacific  states,  in  which  the  urban  element  predominated 
in  1 9 10,  the  urban  increase  was  much  greater  than  the  rural  in- 
crease. It  remained  for  the  Mountain  group  (Montana,  Idaho, 
Wyoming,  Colorado,  New  Mexico,  Arizona,  Utah,  and  Nevada) 
to  offer  the  only  exception;  here  the  rural  element,  larger  in  19 10 
than  the  urban,  showed  a  decidedly  greater  increase  from  19 10  to 
1920  than  that  recorded  by  the  urban  class. 

During  the  lo-year  period  from  19 10  to  1920,  474  cities  and 
other  communities,  formerly  rural,  passed,  because  of  population 
increase,  into  the  class  of  cities  having  2,500  to  25,000  inhabitants; 
and  during  the  same  period  59  cities  moved  upward  into  the 
25,000-100,000  class,  while  18  left  this  class  for  the  one  comprising 
cities  having  100,000  inhabitants  or  more.  These  changes  resulted 
in  increasing  the  number  of  cities  in  the  2,500-25,000  class  from 
2,085  to  2,500,  in  the  25,000-100,000  class  from  178  to  219,  and  in 
the  class  100,000  and  over  from  50  to  68.  This  procedure  makes 
precise  comparison  difficult,  but  does  not  impair  the  general 
significance  of  the  steady  population  growth  of  cities. 

Table  51,  on  page  220,  presents  a  classification  of  the  urban 
population  in  1920,  with  reference  to  these  three  groups  of  cities, 
for  the  geographic  divisions  and  individual  states.  This  classifi- 
cation of  urban  population  is  summarized,  for  the  United  States, 
in  Table  16. 


78 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 


Table  i6. — Summary  of  Urban  Communities:  1920. 


CtASS  OP  COMMtJNITY. 


Total 

2,500  to  25,000.  . 
25,000  to  100,000 
100,000  and  over 


Number. 


2,787 


2,500 
219 

68 


POPULATION. 


Number,  1920. 


54,304,603 


16,534,489 
10,340, 788 
27,429,326 


Per  cent  of 
increase: 
1910-1920.' 


25-7 


23.0 

330 
24.9 


'  The  percentages  of  increase  in  this  summary  relate  to  the  several  groups  of  cities  as  c(msliluUd  in  iq20. 
Thus  each  percentage  represents  the  growth  within  an  unchanged  area,  but  not  the  difference  between 
the  population  living  in  the  specified  group  in  1910  and  in  the  corresponding  group  in  1920.  To  illustrate: 
The  number  of  cities  having  100,000  inhabitants  or  more  in  1910  was  50,  and  in  1920,  68.  The  combined 
population  of  the  68  cities  increased  by  24.9  per  cent  between  1910  and  1920,  but  if  the  rate  of  increase  had 
been  based  on  the  population  in  1910  of  the  50  cities  which  had  100,000  inhabitants  or  more  in  that  year  it 
would  have  been  35.1  per  cent.  In  the  diagram  below  the  percentages  of  increase  relate  to  groups  which 
comprised  different  cities  at  different  censuses. 

Increase  in  Urban  Population,  by  Classes  of  Cities:  1890-1920. 

PER  CENT 
O  20  40  60  80 

TOTAL 


"™*"    WMMMM^^ 


».0«,  ANO  OVER  ^^^^^gfc;^^ 


26 ,000  TO  100.000 
100.000  TO  250,000 
260.000  TO  600.000 


600.000  AND  OV^R^^^SS^JB^^^^, 


^zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzm 


l^H^  1910  TO  1920   KZZQQI  1900  TO  1910     V/y/Z/Z^A  lfi9Q  TO  1900 

Classification  of  cities  by  geographic  areas  brings  out  from 
another  angle  the  urban  strength  of  the  eastern  and  central 
industrial  states.  These  groups,  comprising  New  England  and 
the  Middle  Atlantic  and  East  North  Central  states,  contributed  38 
of  the  68  cities  having  100,000  inhabitants  or  more  in  1920,  with 
approximately  19,500,000  population  in  an  aggregate  of  27,500,000, 
and  144  of  the  219  cities  having  25,000  to  100,000  inhabitants, 
with  6,500,000  population  in  an  aggregate  of  10,340,000. 

Of  the  25  cities  having  250,000  or  more  inhabitants  in  1920, 
only  4  retained  the  same  rank  in  that  year  as  in  19 10,  while  10 
improved  their  position  and  11  fell  behind.  These  changes 
merely  indicate  the  readjustments  which  of  necessity  occur  in 
the  population  of  a  group  of  great  cities  scattered  throughout  the 
country  during  a  period  of  general  and  large  increase. 


RURAL  AND  URBAN  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE. 


79 


The  following  table  presents  in  detail  the  changes  in  this  group : 

Tabi,e  17. — Population  of  Cities  Having,  in  1920,  250,000  Inhabit- 
ants OR  More,  with  Increase  and  Rank:  1920  and  19 10. 


New  York 

Chicago 

Philadelphia.  .  . 

Detroit 

Cleveland 

St.  Louis 

Boston 

Baltimore 

Pittsburgh 

Los  Angeles 

Buffalo 

San  Francisco .  . 

Milwaukee 

Washington 

Newark 

Cincinnati 

New  Orleans.  .. . 
Minneapolis .... 
Kansas  City,  Mo 
Seattle 

Indianapolis. . . . 

Jersey  City 

Rochester 

Portland,  Or  eg. . 
Denver 


POPULATION. 


5,620,048 
2,701,705 

1.823,779 
993.678 

796,841 

772,897 

748,060 

733.826 

588,343 
576,673 

506,775 

506,676 

457.147 
437.571 
414.524 

401,247 

387,219 
380,582 
324,410 
315.312 

314.194 

298, 103 

295.750 
258,288 
256,491 


,766,883 
■185,283 

, 549 , 008 
465,766 
560,663 

687,029 
670,585 
558,485 
533.905 
319,198 

423.715 
416,912 

373.857 
331.069 

347 . 469 

363.591 
339.075 
301,408 
248,381 
237.194 

233.650 

267.779 
218, 149 
207,214 
213.381 


increasb,  1910-1920. 


Number. 


853.165 
516,422 
274,771 
527,912 
236,178 

85,868 
77.475 

175.341 
54.438 

257.475 

83 , 060 
89,764 
83,290 
106,502 
67.055 

37-656 
48,144 

79.174 
76,029 
78,118 

80,544 

30,324 
77,601 

51.074 
43.110 


17.9 
23.6 
17.7 

42. 1 

12.5 
II. 6 

31-4 
10.2 
80.7 

19.6 

21-5 
22.3 
32.2 
19-3 

10.4 
14.2 
26.3 
30.6 
32.9 

34-5 
II-3 
35-6 
24.6 
20.2 


3 
4 

5 

6 

7 
8 

9 

10 


13 
14 

15 

16 

17 
18 

19 
20 


23 
24 
25 


3 
9 
6 

4 
5 
7 
8 

17 


16 
14 

13 
15 
18 


19 
25 
28 

27 


The  changing  relations  of  the  two  great  sections  of  the  Ameri- 
can people,  divided  according  to  rural  and  urban  residence,  are 
assuming  extreme  economic  importance.  Thus  far  the  analysis 
has  developed  a  tendency  so  general  and  pronounced  that  it  ex- 
tends to  all  states  in  the  Union.  It  will  be  of  great  interest,  there- 
fore, to  make  a  somewhat  more  detailed  analysis  for  the  state 
which  not  only  has  the  largest  total  population  but  also  contains 
the  largest  city  and  is  preeminently  urban  in  character. 


rural   and   urban   changes   in   new   YORK   STATE. 

The  State  of  New  York  reported  practically  its  entire  generous 
increase  from  19 10  to  1920  in  the  growth  of  New  York  City  and  the 
other  cities  having  25,000  inhabitants  or  more.  New  York  City 
has  contributed  for  a  long  period  two-thirds  or  more  of  the  decen- 


80 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 


nial  increase  in  the  population  of  the  state,  so  that  by  1910  the 
city  overtook  and  passed  the  remainder  of  the  state,  reporting 
more  than  half  the  total  population  of  New  York  state  in  that 
year.  The  gap  widened  in  1920,  when  the  city  returned  54.1 
per  cent  of  the  state's  inhabitants,  as  against  45.9  per  cent  outside 
the  city. 

Tabi^e  18. — Growth  of  New  York  City  in  Comparison  with 
Remainder  of  State:  1900-1920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 


1900 
I9IO 
1920 


NEW  YORK  CITY. 


Total 
population. 


3,437,202 
4,766,883 
5,620,048 


Number. 


939,788 

1,339,681 

853.165 


Per 
cent. 


37-1 
38.7 
17.9 


REMAINDER  OP  STATE. 


Total 
population. 


3,831,692 
4.346,731 
4.765.179 


Increase. 


Number. 


335.932 
515.039 
418,448 


Per 
cent. 


9.6 

13-4 
9.6 


It  is  important  to  remember,  however,  that  New  York  outside 
of  New  York  City  is  a  large  and  very  populous  state.  Shorn  of 
the  city.  New  York,  with  4,765,179  inhabitants  remaining,  would 
still  rank  fourth  among  the  states  in  population.  This  great 
total  includes  21  cities  having  more  than  25,000  inhabitants  and 
ranging  from  that  figure  up  to  half  a  million.  Three  cities, 
Buffalo,  Rochester,  and  Syracuse,  together  returned  nearly 
1,000,000  inhabitants. 

The  aggregate  population  of  the  cities  in  New  York  having 
25,000  inhabitants  or  more,  exclusive  of  New  York  City,  and  the 
increases  which  have  occurred  in  their  population  during  the  past 
three  decades  are  shown  in  the  following  tabulation  in  compari- 
son with  smaller  communities,  including  rural  districts: 

Table  19. — Growth  of  Cities  in  New  York  State  Having  over 
25,000  Inhabitants,  Exclusive  of  New  York  City,  in  Comparison 
with  Smaller  Communities:  i 900-1 920. 


CITIES  OVER  25,000,  EXCLUSrVB  OP  NEW 
YORK  CITY. 

coMMimrriBs  iwder  35.000. 

CENSUS 
YEAR. 

Num- 
ber of 
cities. 

Combined 
population. 

Increase  since 
preceding  census. 

Combined 
population. 

Increase  or  decrease  ( — ) 
since  preceding  census. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

1900 

I9IO 

1920 

II 

20 

21 

1,019,831 
1,564,688 
1,942.859 

373.717 
544,857 
378,171 

57-8 
53-4 
24.2 

2,811,861 
2 . 782 , 043 
2,833,330 

-37.785 

-29,818 

40,377 

-1-3 

—  I.O 

1.4 

RURAL  AND  URBAN  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE.       81 

Here  is  shown  in  most  striking  fashion  the  trend  toward  large 
cities  in  the  state  which  in  a  population  sense  is  overshadowed  by 
the  metropolis  of  the  country.  New  York  City  increased  17.9 
per  cent  from  19 10  to  1920.  The  21  other  cities  having  more 
than  25,000  inhabitants  in  1920  increased  24.2  per  cent,  while 
the  population  of  smaller  communities  outside  these  cities,  amount- 
ing to  nearly  3,000,000,  increased  only  40,277,  or  slightly  more 
than  I  per  cent,  recording,  in  fact,  a  practically  stationary  con- 
dition although  these  smaller  communities  included  many  small 
cities  and  large  villages. 

It  is  possible  to  go  further  with  the  analysis  of  New  York 
State  conditions.  In  19 10,  15  counties,  or  one-quarter  of  all  in 
the  state,  reported  loss  of  population.  These  losses  totaled  but 
19,000.  In  1920,  13  of  the  15  counties  previously  decreasing 
again  retiuned  decreases,  but  instead  of  only  15  counties  report- 
ing loss  as  before,  the  number  grew  to  32,  or  two-thirds  of  all  the 
nonmetropolitan  areas  in  the  state,  and  the  aggregate  loss  was 
87,000.  These  32  counties  were  scattered  all  over  the  state. 
In  fact,  the  decreasing  counties  appeared  so  generally  that  it  is 
impossible  to  indicate  any  definite  geographic  trend. 

Advancing  the  analysis  to  cities  and  towns  (corresponding  to 
townships  in  most  sections  of  the  country),  of  which  there  are 
approximately  1,000  in  the  state,  it  is  found  that  three-quarters 
of  the  entire  number  declined  in  population — to  be  exact,  743  in 
1920,  as  compared  with  632  in  1910.  The  738  towns  and  5  cities 
reporting  decreases  had  an  aggregate  population  of  1,625,886  in 
1910,  as  against  only  1,431,836  in  1920.  Thus  they  lost  during 
the  decade  194,050  inhabitants,  or  11.9  per  cent. 

The  apparently  gratifying  increase  in  population  which  has 
been  in  progress  in  the  state  of  New  York  from  1910  to  1920 
was  secured  from  three  sources:  First,  the  city  of  New  York; 
second,  the  group  of  21  other  cities  having  more  than  25,000 
inhabitants  in  1920;  and  third,  from  among  the  36  cities  having 
from  10,000  to  25,000  inhabitants  in  1920.  The  population  of 
the  remainder  of  the  state,  taken  as  a  whole,  remained  stationary. 

There  are  many  of  the  more  urban  states  in  which  the  popula- 
tion changes  resemble  those  here  described,  but  New  York  is 
conspicuous  because  it  contains  the  largest  city  in  the  country 
and  also  a  very  large  urban  population  outside  the  metropolis, 
so  that  its  urban  increase  proves  to  be  especially  interesting  and 
impressive. 

107°— 22 6 


82 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


INCREASE   OF   SMALLER   CITIES. 

The  movement  which  has  been  in  progress  during  the  past 
decade  from  countn^  to  city  is  perhaps  more  vividly  illustrated 
by  the  figures  presented  in  Table  52  (p.  222)  than  by  any  of  the 
tabulations  presented  in  the  preceding  pages.  This  table  separates 
the  population  of  each  state  into  two  groups;  one,  cities  of  25,000 
and  over;  and  the  other,  the  smaller  cities,  villages,  and  rural 
communities.  The  purpose  of  the  analysis  in  this  form  is  to 
show  the  predominating  influence,  both  as  to  absolute  figures  and 
increase,  of  communities  having  in  excess  of  25,000  inhabitants. 
Cities  of  25,000  population  and  over  are  found  in  41  out  of  the  48 
states.  In  1920  they  contributed  to  the  total  population  approx- 
imately 38,000,000  inhabitants.  The  following  summary  indi- 
cates the  disparity  in  increase : 

Table  20. — Summary  of  Population  in  Cities  of  25,000  and  Over  in 
1920,  and  Population  Outside  such  Cities:  1920  and  1910. 


anes  op  25,000  and  over  in  1920 
(287  atiEs). 

ALL  OTHER  COMMtJNITIES. 

CENSUS  YEAR. 

Total 
population. 

Increase. 

Percent 
of  in- 
crease. 

Total 
population. 

Increase. 

Percent 
of  in- 
crease. 

29,746,272 
37,770,114 

62,225,994 
67,940,506 

1020 

8,023,842 

27.0 

5. 714. 5" 

9.2 

Reference  to  the  table  from  which  this  summary  is  derived  shows 
that  in  each  of  the  41  states  except  4 — New  Jersey,  Kentucky, 
Montana,  and  Colorado — the  percentage  of  increase  for  the  cities 
of  25,000  or  more  was  greater,  and  in  most  cases  very  much 
greater,  than  the  percentage  of  increase  shown  by  the  rest  of  the 
state.  Indeed,  the  contrasts  in  some  instances  were  almost  start- 
ling. It  is  significant  also  that  in  most  of  the  Southern  states,  to 
which  attention  has  already  been  called  as  being  the  stronghold  of 
the  rural  element  and  of  rural  growth  in  the  past,  the  increase  in 
population  of  the  cities  grouped  as  indicated  was  large,  reaching 
a  maximum  of  nearly  80  per  cent  in  Oklahoma.  Kentucky  and 
Louisiana  were  the  only  Southern  states  in  which  the  rates  of  in- 
crease were  low.  Five  states  in  the  South  showed  more  than  50 
per  cent  increase  in  the  population  of  cities  over  25,000.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  increase  in  those  portions  of  the  states  outside 
such  cities  was  confined  to  the  narrow  range  of  from  4  to  2 1  per 
cent. 


RURAL  AND  URBAN  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE.  83 

This  analysis  of  rural  and  urban  increase  from  various  points  of 
view  makes  evident  the  unprecedented  trend  of  increasing  numbers 
of  persons  during  the  past  20  years  away  from  country  life  until, 
in  the  imwonted  events  of  19 10  to  1920,  the  great  increase  in  city 
population  led  to  a  majority  of  the  so-called  urban  population  in 
the  entire  Nation,  and  a  rather  definite  arrest  of  rural  increase. 

In  the  great  movements  of  humanity  here  and  there  across  the 
continent,  there  are  likely  to  appear  relatively  less  and  less  violent 
population  changes  as  settlement  and  development  of  natural 
resources  tend  to  become  complete;  hence,  succeeding  censuses  no 
doubt  will  reflect  a  slowing  down  of  the  urban  movement. 


VII. 

INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  OF  POPULATION  CON- 
SIDERED  BY  SEX,   NATIVITY,  AND  COLOR. 

Consideration  thus  far  of  population  changes  from  1910  to 
1920  has  been  confined  to  mere  quantitive  increase  or  decrease. 

Distinct  from  these  changes  wrought  in  the  population  as  a 
whole,  such  as  increase  or  decrease  shown  by  states  or  smaller 
areas,  or  the  general  tendency  to  migrate  from  country  to  city, 
are  other  and  equally  important  changes  affecting  the  composi- 
tion of  the  population  itself — changes  in  regard  to  sex,  nativity, 
and  color.  These  in  turn,  as  proved  to  be  the  case  with  the  popu- 
lation as  a  whole,  assume  added  significance  when  considered  by 
geographic  areas. 

CHANGES   IN  THE   PROPORTION   OF   THE   SEXES. 

Natiu*ally  the  first  advance  from  the  consideration  of  the  pop- 
ulation merely  as  individuals  must  be  classification  by  sex.  The 
following  statement  shows  the  sex  distribution  of  the  population 
of  the  United  States  for  1900,  19 10,  and  1920: 


CENSUS   YEAR. 

Male. 

Female. 

Males  to 

100 
females. 

38,816,448 
47,332,277 
53,900,431 

37.178.127 
44, 639,  989 
51,810,  189 

104.4 
106.  0 

IQ20 

104.  0 

The  number  of  males  in  continental  United  States  in  1920  con- 
siderably exceeded  that  of  females.  This  excess  has  appeared 
at  every  census  since  1820,  when  for  the  first  time  the  returns 
indicated  the  sex  of  every  person  enumerated,  free  or  slave.  In 
1920  the  numerical  excess  of  males  was  more  than  2,000,000, 
larger  than  at  any  preceding  census  except  that  of  1910,  when  it 
reached  nearly  2,700,000.  But  tlie  proportionate  excess  in  1920 
was  less  than  it  had  been  for  40  years;  in  other  words,  the  sexes 
were  more  nearly  balanced  numerically  in  1920  than  in  any  of 
the  3  preceding  census  years.  In  each  10,000  of  the  population 
of  1910  there  were  293  more  males  than  females,  and  in  1920 
only  198.  This  decrease  of  95  per  10,000  in  the  excess  of 
males  may  be  compared  with  the  decrease  of  120  per  10,000 
between  i860  and  1870,  the  only  other  decade  since  1820  marked 
84 


INCREASE  BY  SEX,  NATIVITY,  AND  COLOR. 


85 


by  a  sharp  decrease  in  the  excess  of  males.  Both  changes  were 
due  to  the  effects,  direct  or  indirect,  of  the  two  wars,  the  Civil  War 
and  the  World  War.  The  decrease  of  more  than  600,000,  or  about 
22  per  cent,  in  the  excess  of  males  during  the  decade  19 10  to  1920 
was  due  to  several  influences  combined — the  greater  mortality 
of  males  resulting  from  the  war,  the  emigration  of  more  males 
than  females,  the  check  upon  immigration,  which  normally  brings 
in  about  55  per  cent  of  males,  and  perhaps  an  increase  in  the  pro- 
portion of  females  among  the  immigrants  who  did  arrive.  Exam- 
ination of  the  figures  by  race  and  birthplace  shows  that  almost 
three-fifths  of  the  decrease  in  the  excess  of  males  is  among  the 
foreign-bom  whites,  although  they  constituted  only  13  per  cent  of 
the  total  population.  This  shows  that  the  main  influences  at 
work  were  the  decrease  in  immigration  and  the  increased  emigra- 
tion of  the  foreign  bom,  as  noted  above. 

INCREASE   BY   NATIVITY   AND   COLOR. 

The  changing  rates  of  increase  for  the  white  (subdivided  as 
native  and  foreign)  and  colored  population  are  shown  in  Table  21, 
which  follows.  Tables  53  and  54  will  also  be  found  of  interest 
in  connection  with  increase  and  distribution. 

Table  21. — Growth  of  the  WmTE  and  Colored  Elements  oe  the 
Population:  1790- 1920. 


TOTAL 

WHITE. 

CENSUS 
YBAR, 

POPULATION. 

Total. 

Native. 

Foreign  bom. 

Number. 

Per 
cent 
of  in- 
crease 

Number. 

Per 
cent 
of  in- 
crease 

Number. 

Per 
cent 
of  in- 
crease 

Number. 

Per 
cent 
of  in- 
crease 

Number. 

Per 
cent 
of  in- 
crease 

1790 

1800      .  . 

3,929,214 

5, 308,  483 

7,  239.  881 

9. 638,  453 

12,  866, 020 

17, 069,  4S3 

23,  191.  876 

31,443,321 

«39.  818,449 

50,  15s.  783 

62,947,  714 

75.994.575 

91,  972,  266 

105.710,620 

35-1 
36.4 
33-1 
33-5 
32.7 
35-9 
35-6 
26.6 
26.  0 
'24.9 

20.  7 

21.  0 
14.9 

3, 172,006 

4, 306, 446 

5, 862,  073 

7.866,797 

10,537.378 

14, 195,  80s 

19.  553. 068 

26,  922,  537 

'34.337.292 

43,402,970 

55,  loi,  258 

66,  809,  196 

81.731.957 

94,  820,  915 

7S7, 208 
1, 002, 037 
I,  377,  808 

1.  771.656 

2,  328,  642 
2,  873. 648 
3,638,808 
4,  520,  784 

25,481,157 
6,  752,  813 
7, 846, 456 
9.  185,379 
10,  240,  309 
10,889,705 

35.8 
36. 1 
34-2 
33-9 
34-7 
37-7 
37-7 
27- 5 
26.4 
3  26.  7 
21.  2 
22-3 

16.  0 

32.3 
37- S 
38.6 

j8io 

J830 

1840 

31-4 
23.4 
26.6 

24-9 

21.  3 

33.3 

3  16.  2 

17.  I 

II.  5 
6.3 

1850 

i860 

J870 

1880 

J890 

1900 

1910 

1930 

17.312,533 

22.  825,  784 

228,843,580 
36, 843, 291 

4S.  979.  391 
56,  595.  379 
68,  386,  412 
81,  108,  161 

31.8 

26.  4 

27.7 

'24.  S 

23-  I 
20.8 

ta6 

2,  240,  535 
4, 096,  753 
5,493.712 
6.  559.  679 
9,  121,  867 
10,  213,  817 
13, 345,  S4S 
13.  71a.  754 

82.8 
34- I 
19.4 
'39. 1 
12.  0 
30.7 
2.8 

•  Negroes,  Indians,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc. 
2  Estimated  corrected  figures ;  census  of  1870  incomplete. 

'In  computing  this  percentage  of  increase,  the  returns  from  the  special  enumeration  of  Indian  Terri- 
tory and  Indian  reservations  in  1890  were  excluded  from  the  total  for  that  year. 


86 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Color  or  Race,  Nativity,  and  Parentage,  by  Divisions: 

1920,  1910,  AND  1900. 

PER  CENT 

) 
7ZZZ1 


1620 

UNITED  STATES     i9io 

1900 
GEOGRAPHIC   DIVISIONS 
1820 
NEW  ENGLAND 


MID.ATLANTIC 


E.NaCENTRAL 


W  NO,  CENTRAL 


80.  ATLANTIC 


E.  80.CENTRAL 


MUdO^ENTRAL 


PACIFIC 


f///////A  NATIVE  WHITE.  NATIVE  PARENTAGE 

^SSJUdSm  NATIVE  WHITE.  FOREIGN  OR  MIXED  PARENTAOe 

ir^yy^  F0REIQN>BORN  WHITE 

■m  NEGRO  AND  ALL  OTHER 


The  increase  of  population  from  1 910  to  1920,  distributed  accord- 
ing to  color  or  race,  was  as  follows :  White,  increase,  13,088,958; 
Negro,  increase,  635,368;  Indian,  decrease,  21,246;  Chinese,  de- 
crease, 9,892 ;  Japanese,  increase,  38,853;  all  other,  increase,  6,313. 

The  white  population  of  the  United  States  has  shown  a  higher 
rate  of  increase  than  the  total  population  at  every  census  ex- 
cept that  of  1 8 10. 

Classification  merely  as  white,  however,  has  only  a  general 
interest,  for  the  stream  of  immigration  entering  the  country  in 
great  volume  after  1840  supplied  a  distinct  element,  the  foreign 
bom,  99  per  cent  of  which  was  white  and  which  early  began  to 
form  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  total  white  population. 
One  step  removed  from  this  element,  and  derived  from  it,  was 
the  class  "native  white  of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage,"  a  group 
which  began  to  assume  large  proportions  by  1880.  Thus  in  1850 
and  i860  the  census  divided  the  whites  into  "native"  and  "for- 
eign," but  in  1870  and  thereafter  added  the  subdivisions  "native 
whites  of  native  parentage,"  "  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage," 
and  "native  wliites  of  mixed  parentage." 


VIII. 

NATIVE  WHITES  OF  NATIVE  PARENTAGE. 

Table  53,  which  appears  on  page  224,  presents  the  increase  of 
the  population  of  the  United  States  from  19 10  to  1920  classified 
by  nativity,  as  previously  defined.  From  this  table  it  appears 
that  the  increase  contributed  by  each  class  was  as  follows: 

Native  white — 

Of  native  parentage 8 ,  933 ,  382 

Of  foreign  parentage 2 ,  778, 228 

Of  mixed  parentage 1,010, 139 

Foreign-bom  white 367 ,  209 

Total  white  increase,  1910  to  1920 13,088,958 

More  than  two-thirds  of  the  entire  white  increase  from  1 910  to 
1920  was  contributed  by  the  natives  of  native  parents.  Since  this 
element  formed  more  than  one-half  of  the  total  population  of  the 
United  States  in  1920,  and  more  than  three-fifths  of  the  white 
population,  it  will  be  first  considered. 

Tabi,e  22. — Increase  in  Total  White  Population  and  in  Native 
WmTES  of  Native  Parentage:  1860-1920. 


1860-1870 
1870-1880 
1880-1890 
1890-1900 
1900-1910 
1910-1920 


Increase  in 
total  white 
Ix)ptilation. 


17,414,755 
1 9,065,678 
2 11,580,920 
11,707,938 
14,922,761 
13,088,958 


INCREASE  IN  NATIVE   WHITES 
OF  NATIVE  PARENTAGE. 


5,049,  112 

25,789,924 

6,473,646 

8,539.213 
8,933.382 


Per  cent  of 

total  white 

increase. 


55-7 
50.  o 

55-3 
57-2 
68.3 


1  Estimated  corrected  figures;  census  of  1870  incomplete. 

'  Exclusive  of  Indians  in  Indian  Territory  and  on  Indian  reservations,  not  enumerated  prior  to  1890. 

The  proportion  which  the  increase  in  native  whites  of  native 
parentage  formed  of  the  total  white  increase  affords  an  interesting 
glimpse  of  the  influence  of  the  foreign  element.  Undoubtedly  at 
the  Second  Census,  had  data  corresponding  to  those  in  the  above 
tabulation  been  seciu-ed,  the  proportion  of  the  entire  white  in- 
crease contributed  by  the  natives  of  native  parentage  would  have 
been  very  high,  perhaps  in  excess  of  95  per  cent.  This  propor- 
tion decreased  as  the  tide  of  immigrants  swelled  and  the  foreign 

87 


88  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


born  and  the  native  whites  of  foreign  parents  began  to  appear  as 
factors  in  the  population  growth.  By  1840  the  proportion  of 
native  whites  of  native  parentage  had  no  doubt  appreciably 
lessened,  and  in  1850,  when  the  census  returned  two  and  a  quarter 
millions  of  foreign  bom,  the  proportion  of  the  increase  in  the 
white  population  contributed  by  the  native  whites  of  native 
parentage  was  probably  65  per  cent.  By  1880  it  had  fallen  to 
56  per  cent,  and  10  years  later,  in  1890,  another  reduction  set 
the  proportion  at  the  low  limit  of  50  per  cent.  The  next  three 
censuses  showed  advances.  During  the  decade  19 10-1920  the 
native  white  population  of  native  parentage  registered,  for  the 
first  time  in  half  a  century,  more  than  its  proportionate  share  of 
the  total  white  increase.  This  was  due,  however,  to  the  fact  that 
the  foreign-bom  white  population,  probably  for  the  first  time  in 
nearly  a  century,  was  only  a  trifle  larger  at  the  end  of  the  decade 
than  at  its  beginning.  In  fact,  each  of  the  three  subclasses  of  the 
native  white  population — those  of  native  parentage,  those  of 
foreign  parentage,  and  those  of  mixed  parentage — ^increased  at  a 
higher  rate  than  the  white  population  as  a  whole.  The  proportion 
which  the  increase  in  the  native  whites  of  native  parentage  formed 
of  the  total  white  increase  during  the  last  decade,  68  per  cent, 
was  probably  similar  to  the  corresponding  proportion  for  the 
decade  1 840-1 850,  but  the  native  whites  of  native  parentage  are 
no  longer  descended  almost  entirely  from  Revolutionary  and  pre- 
Revolutionary  stock,  as  they  were  70  years  ago,  and  the  increased 
contribution  of  the  third  generation  of  the  foreign  stock — namely, 
the  grandchildren  of  foreigners — is  now  an  important  factor  in 
the  increase  of  the  native  white  population  of  native  parentage. 

It  will  be  observed  from  Table  53  (p.  224)  that  the  increase 
of  nearly  9,000,000  between  19 10  and  1920  for  the  United  States 
as  a  whole  was  unevenly  contributed  by  the  states.  New  England 
returned  a  very  slender  increase,  and  a  rate  of  increase  below  the 
national  average  was  contributed  by  the  Middle  Atlantic,  West 
North  Central,  and  East  South  Central  groups  of  states;  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  rate  of  increase  was  considerably  higher  than 
the  national  average  in  the  other  geographic  divisions,  rising, 
indeed,  to  nearly  37  per  cent  in  the  Pacific  division.  These 
divisional  proportions,  however,  prove  too  general  to  be  of  es- 
pecial value. 

It  is  only  when  the  changes  shown  by  the  native  whites  of 
native  parentage  are  considered  by  individual  states  that  the 
degree  of  increase  or  decrease  begins  to  assume  importance.     New 


NATIVE  WHITES  OF  NATIVE  PARENTAGE.  89 

England  proves  to  be  one  of  the  interesting  groups  for  considera- 
tion. Of  these  six  states,  Connecticut  showed  considerable 
increase,  followed  closely  by  Massachusetts.  These  advances  are 
likely  to  have  reflected  the  industrial  activity  during  the  war 
period  of  the  two  states  preeminently  industrial.  In  Maine  the 
native  whites  of  native  parentage  were  practically  stationary,  an 
increase  of  less  than  i,ooo  being  shown.  In  New  Hampshire  a 
comparatively  heavy  reduction  occurred,  the  state  losing  nearly 
5,000  of  this  population  class.  Vermont  lost  about  1,000.  Thus 
in  the  three  northern  states  of  New  England  the  natives  of  native 
parentage  suffered  a  net  reduction  of  approximately  5,000  during 
the  decade,  while  in  the  three  lower  New  England  states,  no 
doubt  in  large  measure  for  the  reason  suggested  in  the  case  of 
Connecticut  and  Massachusetts,  the  increase  amounted  to  nearly 
195,000.  Considerable  reinforcement,  however,  must  have  been 
contributed  by  the  offspring  of  natives  of  foreign  parentage  in 
the  three  states  which  have  always  returned  a  conspicuously 
large  foreign-bom  element. 

In  the  Middle  Atlantic  states  considerable  increases  are  recorded 
in  the  native  element,  amounting  in  round  numbers  to  440,000  in 
New  York,  530,000  in  Pennsylvania,  and  200,000  in  New  Jersey. 
The  highest  rate  of  increase,  however,  appears  for  New  Jersey. 
In  New  York  the  influence  of  the  third  generation  of  the  foreign 
stock  was  probably  more  marked  than  in  Pennsylvania,  and  in 
the  former  state  the  native  stock  increased  at  a  slightly  greater 
rate  than  in  the  latter. 

In  the  East  North  Central  group,  consisting  of  the  industrial 
states  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Micliigan,  and  Wisconsin,  the 
increase  varied  from  9.4  per  cent  in  Indiana  to  38.2  per  cent  in 
Wisconsin,  but  a  per  cent  of  increase  in  Michigan  almost  as  large 
as  in  Wisconsin  represented  a  much  larger  numerical  increase 
than  in  the  latter  state.  In  Michigan  the  development  of  the 
automobile  industry  exerted  great  influence  upon  the  industrial 
life  of  the  state  diuing  the  decade  and  tended,  of  course,  to  attract 
a  large  number  of  high-grade  mechanics,  electricians,  and  other 
experts,  and  thus  increased  the  number  of  persons  bom  in  other 
states  who  became  residents  of  Michigan,  swelling  the  number  of 
natives  of  native  parentage  reported  in  1 920.  This  group  of  states 
showed  a  larger  numerical  increase  than  any  other  group.  Clearly 
it  did  not  result  so  much  from  fertiHty  within  the  group  as  from 
the  general  movement  of  population  during  the  decade  to  the 
great  industrial  centers  of  the  Nation. 


90  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

In  the  West  North  Central  group  liberal  increases  were  reported 
except  in  Missouri  and  Kansas,  the  rate  of  increase  varying  from 
6.2  per  cent  in  Missouri  to  43.9  per  cent  in  Minnesota.  In  this 
geographic  division  the  indirect  influence  of  the  foreign  element 
through  grandparentage  was  undoubtedly  very  considerable. 

In  the  South  Atlantic  group  the  effect  of  natural  increase  tending 
normally  to  expand  the  population  has  always  been  more  in  evi- 
dence than  elsewhere.  Here  the  increases  tend  to  be  more 
uniform.  Maryland,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  North  Carolina, 
South  Carolina,  and  Georgia  showed  a  fairly  uniform  increase 
averaging  about  18  per  cent.  The  exceptional  increase  in  Florida 
may  be  due  in  some  measure  to  the  fact  that  the  census  was 
taken  as  of  January  i ,  and  thus  at  a  season  when  large  numbers 
of  winter  residents  were  in  the  state,  some  of  whom  no  doubt 
claimed  it  as  their  "usual  place  of  abode,"  though  residing  during 
the  greater  part  of  the  year  in  other  states. 

The  conditions  in  the  East  and  West  South  Central  states  re- 
sembled those  in  the  states  of  the  South  Atlantic  group,  since 
there  were  few  foreigners,  except  in  Texas,  where  the  foreign-born 
white  population  increased  50.2  per  cent  during  the  decade,  and 
the  native  stock  in  most  of  the  states  tended  to  retain  its  increase 
within  the  state  borders.  In  consequence  the  percentage  of  in- 
crease in  these  geographic  divisions  ranged  from  9.2  in  Mississippi 
to  28.1  in  Oklahoma,  averaging  approximately  16  per  cent. 

The  variations  which  occurred  in  the  Mountain  and  Pacific 
regions  were  not  significant  of  normal  increase.  Here,  in  the 
largest  degree,  appeared  the  drift  of  natives  from  other  localities 
arriving  for  purposes  of  business  or  residence.  This  is  a  process 
which,  while  it  increases  the  proportion  of  the  native  element 
in  the  state  of  settlement,  reduces  at  the  same  time  the  percent- 
age which  the  native  element  contributes  to  the  total  increase 
in  the  state  of  birth.  The  irregularities  here  shown  are  illustrated 
by  the  percentages  of  increase,  which  range  from  2.7  in  Nevada 
to  83.3  in  Arizona. 

URBAN  TENDENCY  OF  THE  NATIVE  WHITE  ELEMENT. 

Of  the  total  increase  of  9,000,000  native  whites  of  native  parent- 
age in  1920  shown  in  Table  53,  more  than  three-quarters  was  re- 
ported for  urban  communities. 

The  increase  in  population  of  American  cities  which  has  been  so 
marked  during  the  last  30  or  40  years  has  been  the  effect  in  part 


NATIVE  WHITES  OF  NATIVE  PARENTAGE. 


91 


of  the  continued  influx  of  immigrants  and  also  of  the  increase  of 
the  second  generation  of  the  foreign  stock.  There  has  been  a 
continuous  increase,  of  course,  somewhat  irregular,  drawn  from 
the  element  "native  whites  of  native  parentage,"  not  only  from 
those  persons  in  this  class  born  within  the  cities  but  from  migration 
of  natives  of  native  parentage  from  rural  areas  and  smaller  cities. 
Up  to  1 910  the  increase  derived  from  this  source  had  been  com- 
paratively small,  so  that  the  proportion  formed  by  the  natives  of 
native  parentage  in  the .  aggregate  population  of  cities  having 
100,000  inhabitants  or  more  in  1900  was  less  than  one- third  and 
was  approximately  the  same  in  19 10.  In  1920,  however,  the  50 
cities  which  had  100,000  or  more  inhabitants  in  19 10  showed  an 
increase  in  natives  of  native  parents  50  per  cent  greater  in  amount 
than  that  shown  in  19 10  for  the  same  cities,  thus  indicating  an 
obvious  movement  of  the  native  element,  affecting  all  parts  of  the 
United  States,  from  rural  to  urban  environment.  It  must  be  re- 
membered, however,  that  many  of  the  cities  extended  their  bound- 
aries between  1900  and  19 10  and  between  19 10  and  1920,  and 
therefore  that  the  absolute  increases  during  the  two  decades  are 
not  strictly  comparable.  Nevertheless,  the  very  considerable 
difference  between  the  amounts  of  the  increase  during  the  two 
decades  is  perhaps  the  most  significant  fact  which  appears  in  con- 
nection with  the  natives  of  native  parentage,  coupled  with  the 
varying  degrees  of  increase  which  have  been  previously  pointed 
out.  It  will  be  profitable  to  extend  the  analysis  of  this  increased 
trend  of  the  native  element  to  cities. 

The  following  table  indicates  the  relation  between  increase  in 
total  population  in  cities  having  100,000  inhabitants  or  more, 
and  in  the  native  element  in  the  same  communities: 

Table  23. — Increase  of  Native  WmTES  of  Native  Parentage  in 
Comparison  with  Increase  in  Total  Population  in  Cities  of 
100,000  Inhabitants  or  More:  1900-1920. 


Num- 
ber of 
cities. 

TOTAL  POPULATION. 

NATIVE  WHITES  Ot  NATIVE  PARENTAGE. 

CENSUS 
YEAR. 

Number. 

Increase. 

Percent 
of  in- 
crease. 

Number. 

Increase. 

Per 
cent  of 

in- 
crease. 

1900 

I9IO 

1920 

38 
68 

14,208,347 
20,302,138 
27,429,326 

4.254.817 
6,370,088 
9.852,391 

6.093.791 
7,127,188 

42.9 
35-1 

2,115,271 
3,482,303 

49-7 
54-7 

92 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


The  figures  in  the  foregoing  table  relate  to  38  cities  in  1900, 
50  cities  in  19 10,  and  68  cities  in  1920.  The  increases,  therefore, 
are  greater  than  those  which  would  be  obtained  from  a  comparison 
of  the  combined  population,  in  different  census  years,  of  a  definite 
and  unchanging  group  of  cities.  Nevertheless,  the  table  serv^es 
fairly  well  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  presented,  namely,  a  com- 
parison of  the  rates  of  increase,  during  the  past  two  decades,  of 
the  total  population  and  of  the  native  white  population  of  native 
parentage  in  the  large  cities. 

A  distinct  check  occurred  in  the  rate  of  growth  of  total  popula- 
tion in  these  cities  from  19 10  to  1920  as  compared  with  1900  to 
19 10,  but  the  rate  of  increase  in  the  native  whites  of  native  parent- 
age, almost  50  per  cent  during  the  early  decade,  showed  a  fur- 
ther advance  to  54.7  per  cent  for  the  recent  decade. 

Between  1900  and  19 10  the  increase  in  native  whites  of  native 
parentage  in  this  group  of  large  cities  was  slightly  more  than 
one- third,  but  between  1910  and  1920  it  was  nearly  one-half,  of  the 
total  increase. 

Table  55  (p.  234)  presents  by  states  the  distribution  of  native 
whites  of  native  parentage  in  19 10  and  1920  as  urban  and  rural. 
This  table  may  be  thus  summarized  for  the  United  States : 

Table  24. — Native  White  Population  op  Native  Parentage, 
Distributed  as  Urban  and  Rural:  19 10  and  1920. 


Native  white  of  native  parentage 

Per  cent  of  total  population 

Urban  native  white  of  native  parentage 
Per  cent  of  total  urban 

Rural  native  white  of  native  parentage . 
Per  cent  of  total  rural 

Total  urban  population 

Per  cent  urban  in  total  population 


49,488,575 
53-8 

17,621,230 

41.8 

31,867,345 
64.0 

42,  166, 120 
45-8 


58,421.957 
55-3 

24,556.729 

45-2 

33,865.228 
65-9 

54,  304,  603 
Si-4 


Inspection  of  the  table  shows  that  while  the  total  population 
in  1920  became  slightly  more  urban  than  rural,  the  native  wliites 
of  native  parentage  continued  to  maintain  a  strong  rural  majority. 
But  this  was  due  entirely  to  the  result  of  earlier  tendencies, 
for  while  the  rural  whites  of  native  parentage  increased  about 
2,000,000  (contributing,  indeed,  more  than  the  total  increase 
in  the  general  rural  class),  the  urban  section  of  the  native  ele- 


NATIVE  WHITES  OF  NATIVE  PARENTAGE.  93 

ment  increased  almost  7,000,000.  This  increase  and  its  distribu- 
tion prove  perhaps  the  most  significant  change  revealed  by  the 
distinctly  native  white  element  at  the  Fourteenth  Census. 

In  New  England,  where  the  native  whites  of  native  parentage 
constituted  but  little  more  than  one-third  of  the  total  population, 
but  one-third  in  turn  of  this  class  itself  remained  rural,  and  while 
the  urban  native  whites  of  native  parentage  increased  from  19 10 
to  1920  about  250,000,  the  corresponding  rural  class  decreased 
about  60,000. 

Similarly,  in  the  group  of  states  extending  from  New  York  to 
Virginia,  although  the  proportion  of  native  whites  of  native 
parentage  slightly  exceeded  that  shown  by  New  England,  the 
increase  of  1,500,000  in  the  urban  group  contrasted  with  a  decline 
of  40,000  in  the  rural  group. 

In  the  South,  where  the  urban  native  whites  of  native  parent- 
age have  heretofore  constituted  a  comparatively  small  proportion 
of  the  total  population,  an  urban  tendency  similar  to  that  shown 
elsewhere  manifested  itself  in  1920,  and  the  growth  of  the  lu^ban 
element  actually  slightly  exceeded  numerically  that  of  the  rural 
element. 

In  all  the  more  important  groups  of  states  the  same  tendency 
is  disclosed,  as  inspection  of  Table  55  reveals  geographically  the 
urban  absorption  of  7,000,000  of  the  9,000,000  increase  from  19 10 
to  1920  in  the  number  of  native  whites  of  native  parentage. 

Of  the  68  cities  having  100,000  or  more  inhabitants  in  1920,  55 
showed  a  distinct  increase  in  the  proportion  contributed  by  the 
native  whites  of  native  parentage.  This  significant  tendency 
appears  in  cities  of  all  sizes  and  located  in  all  parts  of  the  country. 
The  three  leaders  in  population,  New  York,  Chicago,  and  Phila- 
delphia, showed  rather  marked  increases,  and  two  of  the  three, 
Chicago  and  Philadelphia,  reversed  the  tendency  to  decrease  the 
proportion  native  of  native  parentage,  shown  from  1900  to  1910. 
More  than  half  their  total  population  was  reported  by  26  cities  as 
native  white  of  native  parentage,  an  increase  over  the  correspond- 
ing number  in  19 10. 

Three  cities  reported  over  70  per  cent  of  all  their  inhabitants  as 
native  whites  of  native  parentage.  Of  these,  Reading,  Pa.,  led 
with  75.2  per  cent.  At  the  other  extreme  New  Bedford  and  Fall 
River  returned  less  than  one-fifth  of  their  population  in  the  native- 
parentage  class. 


94  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

Thirteen  cities  were  exceptions  to  the  general  tendency  and 
showed  decreases  in  the  proportion  of  their  native  whites  of  native 
parentage,  and  in  all  but  three  of  them  similar  decreases  appeared 
between  1900  and  19 10.  Six  of  these  cities  were  in  New  England — 
three  in  Massachusetts  and  three  in  Connecticut.  In  nearly  all 
the  large  communities  in  these  two  industrial  states  the  native 
element  has  declined  to  low  proportions  in  the  total  population. 

Here  is  indicated,  broadly,  perhaps,  one  of  the  most  significant 
changes  revealed  by  the  Fourteenth  Census.  It  is  the  response 
made  by  millions  of  persons  of  native  American  stock  to  the  call 
of  the  cities,  north,  east,  west,  and  south,  for  workers  to  serve 
in  factories  and  shops  where  education  and  skill  were  required. 


IX. 

NUMERICAL  IMPORTANCE  OF  DESCENDANTS  OF  WHITE 
PERSONS  ENUMERATED  AT  THE  FIRST  CENSUS. 

Analysis  thus  far  has  dealt  with  the  entire  element  of  the  white 
population  classified  by  the  census  as  natives  of  native  parentage. 
This  class,  comprising  nearly  60,000,000  persons,  is  far  from  homo- 
geneous. It  clearly  consists  of  two  sections,  the  descendants  of 
the  original  white  element  enumerated  at  the  First  Census,  and 
descendants  in  at  least  the  third  generation  of  persons  arriving 
in  the  United  States  after  1 790.  What  part  of  this  so-called 
native  element  of  58,000,000  in  the  United  States  in  1920  was  de- 
scended from  the  3,000,000  whites  enumerated  in  1790?  It  is 
clear  that,  having  reached  even  an  approximate  figiire,  the  differ- 
ence must  represent  the  contribution  by  those  persons  who  settled 
in  this  country  subsequently  to  1 790. 

This  subject  has  long  offered  one  of  the  most  interesting  statis- 
tical problems  considered  by  students  of  population  change  in  the 
United  States.  The  importance  of  analyzing  the  origin  of  the 
population  of  the  United  States  was  first  publicly  recognized  100 
years  ago.  As  Congress  took  up  the  task  of  framing  the  law 
authorizing  the  Second  Census,  1800,  the  Connecticut  Academy  of 
Arts  and  Sciences,  by  Dr.  Timothy  Dwight,  its  president,  memo- 
rialized the  Senate  concerning  the  scope  of  the  census.  The 
memorial  contained  this  rather  prophetic  suggestion . 

"To  present  and  future  generations  it  will  be  highly  gratifying 
to  observe  the  progress  of  population  in  this  country,  and  to  be 
able  to  trace  the  proportion  of  its  increase  from  native  Americans  and 
from  foreigners  immigrating  at  successive  periods. ' '  ^ 

Unfortunately,  the  Senate  did  not  heed  the  memorial  and  did 
not  provide  for  the  return  of  the  foreign  bom  at  the  census  of 
1800.  It  was  half  a  century  later,  in  1850,  that  foreign-born 
persons  were  first  enumerated  separately. 

»  Garfield 's  Report  on  Ninth  Census,  H.  R.,  Forty-first  Congress,  second  session, 
Vol.  I,  No.  3,  p.  36. 

95 


96  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

Analysis  of  the  increase  of  population  by  nativity  requires 
some  reference  to  the  probable  increase  of  the  distinctly  native 
element.  A  brief  census  study  of  this  subject  in  1909/  in  connec- 
tion with  a  review  of  the  statistics  obtainable  at  an  early  period, 
established  three  methods  of  determining  what  had  been  the 
contribution  of  the  native  element  to  the  total  white  population. 
These  methods  were:  (i)  Elimination  of  foreign  stock  from  the 
native  element;  (2)  estimate  of  growth  of  the  native  white  stock 
based  on  the  rate  of  increase  shown  by  the  Southern  states ;  ^  and 
(3)  estimate  of  growth  of  the  white  population  of  native  stock 
measured  by  the  proportion  of  persons  in  Massachusetts  having 
native  grandparents.  The  third  method  of  computation  was  made 
possible  by  the  fact  that  in  1905  the  state  census  of  Massachusetts 
attempted  an  inquiry,  the  nativity  of  grandparents,  which  had 
never  been  attempted  by  any  other  census,  state  or  national,  in  the 
United  States.  The  result  of  that  inquiry  was  not  altogether 
satisfactory.  It  was  generally  regarded  as  being  rather  inaccurate, 
but  it  seems  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  inaccuracy  related 
more  to  those  elements  foreign  or  recently  foreign  than  to  the 
native  element,  since  nearly  all  Americans  of  native  stock  can 
answer  unhesitatingly  that  their  grandparents  were  bom  in  the 
United  States,  though  in  many  instances  they  might  not  be  sure 
as  to  the  state  in  which  born. 

The  first  of  these  methods  yielded  an  estimate,  for  1900,  of 
35j5oo,ooo  as  representing  the  native  white  stock  whose  foreign- 
born  ancestors  arrived  in  this  country  not  later  than  1790;  the 
second  computation  gave  35,640,000;  and  the  third,  33,730,000. 
The  average  of  the  three  estimates  was  very  nearly  35,000,000. 
This  figure  was  assumed  to  represent  the  numerical  equivalent  of 
the  native  white  stock  in  the  United  States  in  1900;  that  is  to  say, 
it  was  considered  as  equal  to  the  sum  of  the  number  of  persons  of 
pure  native  ancestry  since  1 790  plus  a  number  representing  the 
amount  of  native  stock  in  those  persons  of  mixed  native  and  foreign 
stock.  For  example,  the  amount  of  native  stock  in  four  persons 
each  of  whom  had  one  foreign-bom  grandparent  and  three  native 

'  A  Century  of  Population  Growth  in  the  United  States,  1790-1900.  U.  S.  Census, 
1909. 

^  In  making  the  estimate  by  this  method  it  was  assumed  that  the  rate  of  natural 
increase  of  the  native  white  stock  prior  to  1870  was  the  same  for  the  country  as  a 
whole  as  for  the  Southern  states,  and  that  subsequently  to  1870  the  rate  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  country  was  equal  to  one-half  that  for  the  Soutli. 


DESCENDANTS  OF  WHITES  ENUMERATED  IN  1790.  97 

grandparents  of  pure  native  ancestry  would  be  equivalent  to  the 
amount  of  native  stock  in  three  persons  of  pure  native  ancestry. 
(See  Appendix  A,  p.  187.) 

Twenty  years  elapsed  from  the  Twelfth  Census  to  the  Four- 
teenth. The  population  of  the  nation  in  that  period  increased 
about  40  per  cent.  What  has  been  the  contribution  of  the  native 
stock  during  the  two  decades? 

It  can  not,  of  course,  be  claimed  that  methods  of  approaching 
this  subject  are  exhausted  when  those  above  described  have  been 
utilized.  There  are,  indeed,  many  ways  of  approaching  it,  but  it 
probably  will  be  agreed  that  the  most  satisfactory  method  elimi- 
nates in  some  manner  the  foreign  increment,  which  has  been  grow- 
ing in  importance  and  numbers,  especially  since  1845.  To  this 
end  a  careful  study  has  been  made  in  the  Bureau  of  the  Census  and 
a  simple  mathematical  formula  has  been  utilized.  It  is  the  confi- 
dent belief  of  the  census  experts  who  have  worked  over  the  figures 
that  the  procedure  outlined  at  length  in  Appendix  A  of  this  mono- 
graph is  more  likely  to  yield  accurate  results  than  any  of  the 
others  which  have  been  considered.  The  conclusion,  in  fact,  was 
reached  that  the  second  method  employed  in  the  previous  census 
study  represented  considerable  obvious  inaccuracy,  and  that  the 
third  method,  while  extremely  valuable  if  it  could  have  been 
brought  up  to  date,  reflected  conditions  which  might  have  been 
outlived  by  1920,  so  that  the  percentage  used  to  determine  native 
stock  in  1900  became  in  1920  an  arbitrary  and  rather  uncertain 
one. 

If  the  method  thus  suggested  as  preferable,  of  computing  the 
contribution  of  the  original  stock  to  the  population  of  the  United 
States  in  1920  by  eliminating  the  effect  of  immigration  (p.  191), 
be  accepted,  the  numerical  equivalent  of  the  native  white  stock 
in  1900  was  37,290,000;  in  1910,  42,420,000;  and  in  1920, 
47,330,000.^     (For  estimates  for  1820-1890,  see  p.  195.) 

'  Were  the  second  method  of  estimating  native  white  stock  utilized — a  computation 
based  on  the  increase  shown  in  Southern  states — ^the  result  would  have  been  46,250,000 
for  1920.  But,  as  suggested,  this  method  can  not  be  regarded  as  being  especially- 
reliable  or  satisfactory.  The  third  method,  tliat  of  utilizing  the  proportion  of  native 
grandparentage  secured  from  the  Massachusetts  census  of  1905  (79.1  per  cent  of  the 
native  whites  of  native  parentage),  if  applied  to  this  element  of  the  white  population 
in  1920,  would  yield  a  total  of  46,200,000.  The  similarity  here  shown  suggests  that 
possibly  the  proportion  formed  by  persons  of  native  grandparentage  may  be  some- 
what more  nearly  constant  than  students  of  statistics  would  have  been  inclined  to 
admit.  (See  Table  66  and  also  conclusion  of  footnote,  p.  195.) 
107°— 22 7 


98  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

The  47,330,000  estimated  as  representing  the  amount  of  native 
white  stock  in  1920  may  be  considered  as  the  number  of  white 
persons  who  would  have  been  enumerated  in  that  year  had  there 
been  no  immigration  nor  emigation  since  1790  and  if,  nevertheless, 
the  rate  of  natural  increase  had  been  what,  historically,  it  appears 
to  have  been.  The  total  number  descended,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
from  white  persons  enumerated  in  1790  was,  of  course,  consid- 
erably larger  because  of  the  intermingling  of  native  and  foreign 
stock.  In  fact,  it  would  be  theoretically  possible  for  the  total 
number  of  native  white  persons  enumerated  in  1920,  except  those 
having  both  parents  foreign  bom,  to  have  descended  in  whole  or 
in  part  from  white  persons  enumerated  in  1 790. 

There  is  at  least  one  possible  flaw,  though  a  minor  one,  in  the 
calculation  employed  in  making  the  recent  estimates.  It  is  found  in 
the  assumption  that  the  same  rate  of  natural  increase  was  present 
in  both  the  native  and  foreign  elements.  An  attempt  to  ascertain 
the  ratio  between  the  two  rates  of  increase  led  to  the  unexpected 
discovery  that  the  marriage  rates  are  considerably  lower  among  the 
native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage  than  among  the  native 
whites  of  native  parentage.  This  is  true  for  tlie  United  States  as  a 
whole  and  also  for  urban  and  rural  communities  separately.  Thus, 
on  the  one  hand,  while  the  birth  rate  in  the  families  of  the  foreign- 
bom  whites  is  higher  than  for  the  native  whites,  on  the  otlier 
hand  the  marriage  rate  is  considerably  lower  for  American-bom 
white  persons  having  foreign-bom  parents  than  for  the  native 
whites  of  native  parentage.  It  can  not  be  assumed,  therefore, 
that  the  third  generation  of  foreign  white  stock  is  relatively  any 
more  numerous  than  the  contemporary  generation  of  native  white 
stock. 

The  expansion  of  the  native  white  stock  in  20  years  is  repre- 
sented by  the  advance  from  37,290,000  in  1900  to  47,330,000  in 
1920,  an  increase  of  10,040,000,  or  nearly  27  per  cent.  The  rate  of 
increase  in  the  native  whites  of  native  parentage  during  the  same 
period  was  43  per  cent.  The  difference  between  these  rates  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  native  whites  of  native  parentage  are  recruited 
in  part  by  the  children  bom  to  native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed 
parentage,  that  is  to  say,  by  the  grandcliildren  of  tlie  foreign-bora 
whites.  The  total  increase  in  the  native  whites  of  native  parentage 
is,  tlierefore,  greater  than  the  natural  increase,  since  in  the  case 
of  the  families  in  which  the  parents  are  native  whites  of  foreign  or 


DESCENDANTS  OF  WHITES  ENUMERATED  IN  1790.  99 

mixed  parentage  the  births  increase  the  class  of  native  whites  of 
native  parentage,  whereas'  the  deaths  of  the  parents  do  not  de- 
crease that  class. 

It  is  not  possible  to  apportion  among  all  the  states  the  increment 
of  10,040,000  in  the  native  white  stock.  One  separation,  however, 
is  possible  and  proves  of  some  interest.  Certain  Southern  states 
have  been  affected  to  a  very  slight  degree  by  the  great  tide  of 
immigration.  Kven  at  the  last  census,  though  the  foreign  bom 
and  the  children  of  foreign  parentage  in  this  area  showed  a  slight 
increase,  the  absolute  figures  were  negligibly  small.  Hence  the 
increase  of  white  natives  of  native  parentage  in  at  least  9  Southern 
states  was  practically  that  of  distinctly  native  stock,  and  may  be 
regarded  as  a  part  of  the  10,040,000  aggregate  increase  just  shown 
to  have  occurred  in  20  years.  These  9  Southern  states  are  Virginia, 
North  CaroHna,  South  CaroHna,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi, 
Arkansas,  Tennessee,  and  Kentucky.  Together  they  retiumed 
9,700,592  white  natives  of  native  parentage  in  1900.  In  1920  the 
total  was  13,061,286.  This  was  an  increase  of  3,360,694,  or  nearly 
35  per  cent,  in  20  years,  in  comparison  with  the  national  increase 
ot  43  per  cent  in  native  whites  of  native  parentage  and  27  per  cent 
in  estimated  native  white  stock. 

Withdrawing  this  number  of  persons  from  10,040,000  leaves 
6,680,000  as  the  approximate  increase  contributed  by  the  remain- 
ing 39  states  and  the  District  of  Columbia.  In  these  states  the 
estimated  native  white  stock  in  1900,  after  deduction  of  the  total 
number  of  native  whites  of  native  parentage  in  the  9  specified 
Southern  states,  was  27,590,000.  Hence  the  increase  of  the  native 
white  stock  outside  the  excepted  group  of  9  Southern  states  was  24.2 
per  cent  in  20  years.  The  difference  here  indicated  between  the  in- 
crease shown  for  certain  Southern  states  and  that  attributed  to  the 
remainder  of  the  Union  is  in  line  with  imdoubted  tendencies.  It 
is  well  known  that  the  South  has  contributed  a  generous  increase 
to  the  native  stock,  while  it  has  long  been  the  general  beHef  among 
statisticians  that  the  contribution  to  the  native  stock  by  the  rest 
of  the  country  was  not  large  and  differed  widely  among  tlie  states, 
being  in  many  very  small.  In  some  Eastern  states,  indeed,  it  has 
seemed  probable  that  a  loss  was  being  recorded. 

The  increase  of  population  for  the  20-year  period  1900  to  1920 
may  now  be  thus  interestingly  divided,  as  shown  in  Table  25. 


100 


INCRE.\SE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Table  25. — Distribution  of  Population  ant>  Rate  of  Increase  by 
Race  and  Nativity  :  1920  and  1900. 


Total. 


Number. 


105,  710,  620 


Per  cent 

of 

total. 


Number. 


75.994,575 


Per  cent 

of 

total. 


100.  O 


Native  white 81,  108,  161 

Native  stock  (estimated).  '47,330,000 

Nine  Southern  states.!  ^j^^q^j  286 
All  other  states  (esti-  j 

mated) 134,270,000 

Foreign     stock      (esti-  ' 

mated) ,  '33,  780, 000 


Foreign-bom  white 13,  712,  754 

Negro j  10, 463, 131 

Indian,  Chinese,  Japanese,' 

etc I  426, 574 


76.7 
44-8 
12.4 

.32.4 
32.0 

13.0 
9.9 

0.4 


56,  595,  379 
*  37,  290,  000 
-  9,  700,  592 

'  27, 590, 000 

'  19, 300,  000 

10, 213,  817 
8, 833, 994 

351,385 


74-5 
49.  I 
12.8 

3^-3 

25-4 

13-4 
II.  6 

0-5 


Per 
cent  of 

in- 
crease. 
1900- 
1930. 


39-  I 


43-3 
26.  9 
34-6 

24.  2 
75- o 

34-3 
18.4 

21.4 


1  Numerical  equivalent. 

'  Native  white  of  native  parentage;  approximately  same  as  pure  native  white  stock. 

The  addition  of  nearly  14,500,000  to  the  foreign  white  stock  of 
native  birth  during  the  20-year  period,  representing  an  increase  of 
75  per  cent,  is  derived  from  two  sources:  First,  the  increase  of  the 
foreign  white  stock  of  native  birth  present  in  1900  (equivalent  to 
19,300,000);  and  second,  the  sur\nvors,  in  1920,  of  the  children 
bom  in  the  United  States  since  1900  to  foreign  white  parents. 
While  the  first  of  these  two  sources  is  properly  designated  as 
natiu-al  increase,  the  second  is  not,  since  births  in  the  United 
States  to  foreign  parents  increase  the  class  under  consideration, 
while  the  deaths  of  the  parents  do  not  decrease  it.  (See  Appen- 
dix B,  p.  197.) 

From  the  standpoint  of  historic  interest  and  of  influence  on  the 
development  of  the  Nation,  the  distinctly  native  stock  in  the 
population  of  the  United  States  has,  of  course,  been  the  over- 
shadowing element.  There  has  long  been  an  impression  on  the 
part  of  students  of  population  statistics  that  this  element,  begin- 
ning with  an  unusually  large  percentage  of  increase,  has  been 
slackening  in  growth  to  the  point  where  it  was  almost  a  question 
whether  any  increase  at  all  was  occurring — especially  in  certain 
localities. 

The  late  Francis  A.  Walker,  Superintendent  of  the  Tenth 
Census,  whose  contributions  to  scientific  population  analysis  are 


DESCENDANTS  OF  WHITES  ENUMERATED  IN  i790.  101 

of  the  highest  order,  advanced  the  theory  that  the  reduced  in- 
crease of  the  native  stock  was  the  result  of  contact  and  competi- 
tion with  the  foreign  element,  beginning  about  the  middle  of  the 
last  century.  This  theory  has  been  vigorously  opposed  and  as  a 
complete  explanation  has  not  been  accepted,  but  in  one  respect 
it  is  certainly  true.  The  coming  of  the  foreign  element  into 
the  life  of  the  Republic  stimulated  industrial  activity,  railroad 
construction,  manufacturing,  and  development  of  all  kinds.  These 
great  economic  changes  in  turn  tended  to  make  over  the  social 
conditions  of  the  Nation,  and  in  the  complexities  arising  in  that 
direction  is  undoubtedly  to  be  found  the  principal  cause  of 
decreasing  increase  of  a  stock  originally  so  prolific.  Thus  General 
Walker's  theory  may  be  accepted  as  reasonably  correct,  though 
perhaps  in  a  roundabout  way. 

The  analysis  presented  in  the  foregoing  pages  seems  to  make  it 
evident  that  the  distinctly  native  stock,  by  which  is  meant  the  de- 
scendants of  those  persons  who  were  enumerated  at  the  First  Cen- 
sus, has  not  ceased  to  increase  as  a  whole,  but  that  this  increase  is 
being  contributed  unequally  by  different  parts  of  the  country. 
Such  a  change  may  be  accepted  as  natural  and  normal.  In  those 
states  more  or  less  fully  settled  and  in  which  the  incentive  to  pop- 
ulation increase  no  longer  is  urgent,  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that 
radical  changes  in  any  element  will  appear  from  census  to  census. 
The  racial  characteristics  of  the  original  stock  are  such  that  the 
innate  yearning  to  achieve  develops  a  decided  tendency  to  seek 
other  fields  of  activity  where  opportunities  for  advancement 
are  greater  than  in  older  and  more  populous  communities.  Thus, 
quite  naturally,  while  this  element  of  the  population  tends  to 
become  stationary  or  even  to  decline  in  New  England,  in  those 
areas  where  the  call  is  still  urgent  for  increased  population, 
where  chances  are  many  for  individual  advancement,  the  de- 
scendants of  the  original  stock  continue  to  increase.  In  the 
South  and  in  certain  of  the  Northern  Central  and  Western  states, 
without  question  the  representatives  of  the  early  stock  are  con- 
tributing with  reasonable  liberality  to  the  increase  of  population. 

This  analysis  indicates  that  the  native  white  stock  is  increasing 
in  the  entire  Nation  at  the  rate  of  about  ii  or  12  per  cent  per 
decade.  Thus  in  a  broad  sense  the  early  or  Revolutionary  stock 
is  continuing  to  increase  at  a  rate  which  rather  closely  approxi- 
mates the  increase  shown  as  an  average  by  the  nations  of  Europe 
somewhat  allied  to  it  in  characteristics,  primarily  England  and 


102  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

Scotland.  It  is  not  to  be  expected,  if  modem  statistics  of  popu- 
lation growth  are  to  be  accepted  as  indicative,  that  a  nation 
having  reached  maturity  will  increase  at  a  much  faster  rate  than 
an  average  of  lo  per  cent  per  decade.  Therefore,  it  is  reasonable 
and  normal  that  the  oldest  element  in  the  population  of  the 
United  States  and  thus  the  one  which  is  reasonably  comparable 
with  the  population  of  the  nations  of  Europe  should  continue  to 
increase  at  a  rate  roughly  corresponding  to  the  European  rates. 


X. 

NATIVE  WHITES  OF  FOREIGN  OR  MIXED  PARENTAGE 
AND  FOREIGN-BORN  WHITES. 

NATIVE   WHITES   OF   FOREIGN   OR   MIXED   PARENTAGE. 

The  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage  form  what  may  be  termed 
an  intermediate  group  in  the  census  classification  by  nativity. 
The  white  immigrant  is  classed  as  "foreign-bom  white."  His 
children  by  his  foreign-bom  wife  then  become  ' '  native  whites  of 
foreign  parentage,"  and  their  children,  the  grandchildren  of  the 
immigrant,  become  a  part  of  the  principal  element  numerically  of 
the  nation,  the  "native  whites  of  native  parentage. ' '  The  marriage 
of  a  white  person  of  foreign  birth  to  one  of  native  birth  necessi- 
tates for  the  children  resulting  from  such  marriage,  bom  in  the 
United  States,  the  additional  classification  "native  whites  of  mixed 
parentage." 

The  class  of  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage  is  dependent  for 
its  existence  upon  the  number,  ages,  and  marital  condition  of  the 
foreign-bom  whites  in  the  countr)\  If  an  absolute  check  were 
placed  on  immigration  the  foreign  bom  would  gradually  disappear, 
while  the  number  of  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage  would 
linger  one  generation  longer  and  then  also  become  nonexistent. 
As  the  number  of  foreign  bom  within  the  country  increases,  the 
number  of  their  children  increases.  In  the  half  century  from 
1870  to  1920  the  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage  increased  from 
10.8  per  cent  of  the  entire  population  to  14.8  per  cent,  and  during 
the  same  period  the  native  whites  of  mixed  parentage  increased 
from  3  per  cent  to  6.6  per  cent. 

The  increase  in  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage  for  the 
decade  191Q  to  1920  was  2,778,228,  representing  excess  of  births 
over  deaths  and  emigration.  The  increase  in  the  native  whites 
of  mixed  parentage  for  the  same  decade  was  1,010,139.  The  total 
number  of  children  under  10  years  of  age,  and  therefore  having 
been  bom  since  January  i,  19 10,  who  were  enumerated  at  the 
1920  census  as  native  white  of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage  was 
5,901,905.  Reducing  this  number  by  162,000,  representing  the 
estimated  number  of  children  bom  between  January  i  and  April 

103 


104 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


15,  1910  (the  Thirteenth  Census  date),  and  sur\'iving  on  January  i, 
1920,  leaves,  in  round  numbers,  5,740,000  children  bom  between 
the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Census  dates  and  sur\'iving  on 
the  latter  date.  The  difference  of  approximately  1,952,000  be- 
tween this  number  and  the  net  increase  of  3,788,367  in  the  two 
classes  under  consideration  represents  the  number  of  persons  in 
those  classes  who  were  enumerated  on  April  15,  1910,  and  who 
died  or  emigrated  before  January  i,  1920. 

In  accordance  with  the  general  trend  thus  far  observ^ed,  the 
urban  rate  of  increase  of  the  natives  of  foreign  parentage  has  far 
exceeded  the  rural  rate  of  increase.  In  lurban  communities  this 
group  increased  30  per  cent  during  the  past  decade,  while  in 
rural  areas  it  increased  but  4  per  cent. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  the  distribution  of  native  whites 
of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage  conforms  in  general  to  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  foreign  born.  The  following  table  shows  the  propor- 
tions for  the  last  two  census  years : 

Table  26. — Per  Cent  Distribution  of  Foreign-born  Whites  and 
Native  Whites  of  Foreign  or  Mixed  Parentage,  by  Geographic 
Divisions:  1920  and  1910. 


GBOGRAPHIC  DIVISION. 


United  States 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central. . 
West  North  Central. 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central . . 
West  South  Central. 

Mountain 

Pacific 


Foreign-bom 
white. 


100.  o 


13.6 
35-8 

23-5 

10.  o 

2.3 

0-5 
3-3 
3-3 

7-5 


Native  white 
of  foreign 
or  mixed 
parentage. 


II.  6 

3'^-3 
26.  I 
14.9 
2.4 
0.9 
3-  I 
3-3 
6.3 


Foreign-bom 
white. 

Native  white 
of  foreign 
or  mixed 
parentage. 

100.  0 

100.  0 

13-6 

36.2 

23.0 

12.  I 

2.  2 

0.7 

2.6 

3-3 

6.5 


10.  9 
29.  6 
27.  o 
17.0 

2-3 

I.  I 
3-2 
3-3 
5-6 


During  the  last  decade  the  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage 
increased  by  21.5  per  cent,  a  higher  rate  than  that  for  any  other 
group  of  the  white  population.  The  New  England,  Middle 
Atlantic,  and  Pacific  states  all  show  increases  of  over  30  per  cent, 
while  the  East  South  Central  was  the  only  geographic  division  to 
record  a  decrease — 6.8  per  cent.     All  the  states  reporting  de- 


FOREIGN  WHITE  STOCK.  105 

creases  for  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage  also  showed  de- 
creases in  number  of  foreign-born  whites,  though  the  reverse  is 
not  true. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  in 
which  the  native  whites  of  native  parentage  decreased  nearly 
5,000  and  the  foreign-bom  whites  decreased  more  than  5,000,  the 
native  whites  of  foreign  parentage  and  the  native  whites  of  mixed 
parentage  together  increased  more  than  22,000,  and  thereby  kept 
the  state  from  returning  a  net  decrease  for  the  decade. 

Connecticut,  with  an  increase  of  45.8  per  cent,  and  New  Jersey, 
with  43.9  per  cent,  are  illustrations  of  the  attraction  which  in- 
dustrial centers  have  for  the  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage. 
One  other  state  merits  especial  attention.  Although  the  foreign- 
born  whites  in  North  Dakota  decreased  15.8  per  cent  during  the 
decade,  the  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage  increased  13.3  per 
cent  and  the  native  whites  of  mixed  parentage  increased  35.6  per 
cent,  and  the  combined  increase  in  these  two  native  classes  was 
greater  numerically  than  the  increase  in  the  native  whites  of 
native  parentage.  In  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Idaho,  Wyoming, 
Colorado,  and  Utah  decreases  in  the  foreign-born  whites  were  also 
accompanied  by  increases  in  the  native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed 
parentage,  but  in  these  states  the  increases  in  the  native  whites  of 
native  parentage  were  greater  than  the  combined  increases  in  the 
other  two  native  white  classes. 

FOREIGN-BORN   WHITES. 

The  decade  1900  to  19 10  witnessed  the  entrance  of  about 
8,000,000  foreigners  into  the  United  States  and  a  net  increase  of 
30.7  per  cent  in  the  foreign-bom  white  population.  At  the  close 
of  the  period  immigrants  were  entering  the  country  at  the  rate  of 
1,000,000  per  annum.  The  chief  restrictions  at  that  time  were 
those  based  on  physical  disability,  moral  turpitude,  and  the  immi- 
grant's ability  to  support  himself.  In  19 10  the  number  of  foreign- 
bom  whites  in  the  country  was  13,345,545,  or  14.5  per  cent  of  the 
entire  population.  Had  the  increase  for  the  decade  19 10  to  1920 
continued  at  the  rate  of  the  previous  period,  the  foreign-bom 
white  population  of  the  countr}^  would  have  reached  seventeen 
and  one-half  millions  in  1920.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  census 
of  1920  showed  a  foreign-bom  white  population  of  13,712,754, 
an  increase  of  367,209,  or  2.8  per  cent,  over  the  corresponding 


106  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

figure  for  1910.  For  the  previous  decade,  the  rate  of  increase  of 
the  foreign-born  whites  was  nearly  one-half  greater  than  that  for 
the  total  population,  while  for  the  lo-year  period  19 10  to  1920  it 
was  less  than  one-fifth  that  for  the  total  population.  In  the  sense 
of  permitting  more  thorough  assimilation,  this  slackened  increase 
has  proved  fortunate.  The  decrease  in  the  rate  of  increase  for 
the  foreign-born  whites  effected  a  decrease  in  the  proportion  of 
the  total  white  population  which  was  foreign  born.  This  pro- 
portion dropped  to  the  lowest  point  reached  since  1850,  or  14.5 
per  cent  of  the  entire  number  of  white  persons  enumerated. 
Such  a  figure,  however,  is  inadequate  as  an  expression  of  the 
foreign-born  element. 

"We  obtain  a  more  significant  measure  of  the  relative  impor- 
tance of  the  immigrants  if  we  consider  the  percentage  which  they 
form  of  the  adult  population,  or,  taking  a  figure  which  is  con- 
veniently accessible  in  the  census  reports,  the  percentage  which 
they  form  of  the  total  male  population  21  years  of  age  and  over. 
It  is  a  percentage  which  would  be  startling  if  we  had  not  become 
familiar  with  it,  or  if  it  were  announced  for  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  census  taking.  In  19 10 — to  take  first  the  earlier  and 
more  sensational  percentage — 24.6  per  cent,  or  practically  one- 
fourth,  of  the  male  population  21  years  of  age  and  over  consisted 
of  immigrants.  The  percentage  has  now  declined  to  22.  i ,  which  is 
still  over  one-fifth  of  the  total.  Of  course,  much  higher  per- 
centages are  reported  in  certain  sections  of  the  country'.  In  the 
Middle  Atlantic  states  (New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania) 
35.4  per  cent  of  the  male  population  21  years  of  age  and  over  is 
foreign  bom;  in  the  New  England  states,  38.2  per  cent;  in  Massa- 
chusetts, 41.9  per  cent;  in  Boston,  46.3  per  cent;  and  in  New  York 
City,  53.4  per  cent."  ^  Such  proportions  of  foreign  bom  within 
the  United  States  make  any  decrease  in  the  rate  of  increase  sig- 
nificant and  deserving  of  more  intensive  examination. 

Practically  all  the  foreign  born  are  whites,  the  proportion  wliite 
being  98.6  per  cent,  as  compared  with  88.4  per  cent  for  the  natives. 
While  the  foreign-bom  population  can  be  increased  only  by  immi- 
gration, there  are  two  forces  constantly  at  work  decreasing  their 
number,  emigration  and  mortality.  Importunately  fairly  compar- 
able data  on  all  three  subjects  are  available. 

On  April  15,  1 9 10,  the  number  of  foreign-bom  whites  in  the 
United  States,  as  shown  by  the  Tliirteenth  Census,  was  13,345,545. 

'  Dr.  Joseph  A.  Hill,  Assistant  Director  of  the  Census,  before  the  American  Statis- 
tical Association,  Pittsburgh,  Dec.  27,  1921. 


FOREIGN  WHITE  STOCK.  107 

Between  that  date  and  January  i,  1920,  the  excess  of  white  immi- 
gration over  white  emigration  was  approximately  3,350,000. 
(See  Appendix  C,  p,  203.) 

The  addition  of  the  estimated  net  white  immigration  of  3,350,000 
to  the  13,345,545  foreign-bom  whites  enumerated  in  19 10  gives 
a  total  of  approximately  16,695,000  as  the  number  of  foreign- 
bom  whites  who  would  have  been  present  in  the  United  States 
on  January  i,  1920,  had  there  been  no  mortality  in  this  class 
between  the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Census  dates.  The 
number  actually  enumerated  was  13,712,754.  This  would  indi- 
cate, assuming  the  census  figures  and  the  immigration  and  emi- 
gration figures  to  be  correct,  a  mortality  of  about  2,980,000. 
The  mortality  actually  recorded  in  the  death-registration  states  ^ 
indicated,  for  the  entire  United  States,  assuming  the  death  rate 
for  the  foreign-bom  white  population  to  be  the  same  for  the 
country  as  a  whole  as  for  the  registration  states,  a  foreign  white 
mortality  of  only  2,415,000  for  the  period  from  April  15,  1910,  to 
January  i,  1920. 

This  discrepancy  of  565,000 — equal  to  about  4  per  cent  of  the 
entire  number  of  foreign-born  whites  enumerated — probably 
results  in  the  main  from  three  causes:  First,  that  the  mortality 
returns,  although  satisfactorily  near  completeness  in  most  states 
in  the  registration  area,  are  not  absolutely  complete  and  do  not 
cover  the  entire  United  States,  so  that  any  estimate  for  the 
country  as  a  whole  is  subject  to  some  margin  of  error;  second, 
that  the  deaths  of  some  foreign-born  persons,  although  registered, 
may  have  been  erroneously  reported  as  deaths  of  natives;  third, 
that  undoubtedly  a  considerable  number  of  foreign  born,  in  the 
period  of  excitement  just  following  the  war  and  because  of  the 
antagonisms  and  prejudices  aroused  by  it,  may  have  represented 
themselves  to  the  census  enumerators  as  natives. 

In  this  study  of  the  foreign  bom,  considered  as  a  general  group, 
regardless  of  sex  or  nationality,  it  is  important  to  review  the 
changes  in  distribution  which  have  occurred  during  the  lo-year 
period.  Since  there  was  little  actual  net  increase  during  the 
period,  any  considerable  increase  or  decrease  which  took  place  in 
a  given  state  or  city  must  have  been  attended  by  a  corresponding 

*  This  group  of  states,  with  76.6  per  cent  of  the  total  foreign-bom  white  population 
of  the  United  States  in  1910,  was  enlarged  from  year  to  year  and  in  1919  was  estimated 
to  contain  90.6  per  cent  of  the  total  foreign-bom  white  population  of  tlie  country. 


108  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

decrease  or  increase  in  other  areas.  This  does  not  necessarily 
imply  a  migration  from  one  area  to  another.  Approximately 
5,500,000  foreign-bom  whites  entered  the  country  during  the 
decade,  and  an  almost  equal  number  either  emigrated  or  died.  It 
is,  therefore,  possible  for  the  distribution  to  have  been  changed 
quite  violently  during  the  period  with  practically  no  interstate 
migration.  Considerable  redistribution  actually  did  take  place  in 
this  manner. 

The  races  which  decreased  during  the  period  were  relatively 
quite  general  in  their  distribution  throughout  the  country,  while 
those  which  increased  tended  to  concentrate  in  New  England,  the 
Middle  Atlantic,  and  the  East  North  Central  groups  of  states. 
Consequently  the  changing  proportions  between  1910  and  1920 
led  to  increased  concentration  in  the  Eastern  states.  The  shut- 
ting off  of  the  stream  of  immigrants  brought  about  a  demand  for 
other  persons  to  take  their  places  in  the  industrial  centers.  The 
incoming  foreign  bom  have  a  definite  status  in  our  economic  labor 
supply,  and  there  was  great  demand  for  the  type  of  labor  which 
they  customarily  furnish.  This  tended  to  attract  such  foreign 
bom  as  arrived  during  the  decade  to  the  industrial  centers  and  to 
retain  them  there. 

The  redistribution  which  occurred  from  19 10  to  1920  greatly 
affected  certain  areas.  The  West  North  Central  division,  which 
in  1 9 10  possessed  a  foreign-bom  white  population  of  1,613,231,  or 
13.9  per  cent  of  its  entire  population,  actually  showed  for  the 
lo-year  period  a  foreign-bom  white  decrease  of  241,270,  or 
about  15  per  cent.  This  area,  being  mainly  agricultural,  was 
neither  able  to  compete  with  the  demand  for  labor  from  the  in- 
dustrial states  nor  to  attract  those  immigrants  who  came  to  the 
United  States  during  the  decade.  The  East  South  Central  division 
also  showed  a  decrease  in  total  foreign  bom,  but  such  a  change  is 
not  of  especial  significance,  as  the  foreign  bom  in  the  southern 
districts  have  always  been  few  in  number.  The  increases  oc- 
curred in  the  main  in  the  industrial  sections,  in  the  Atlantic  Coast 
states,  and  along  the  Mexican  border.  Massachusetts,  Connecti- 
cut, New  York,  New  Jersey,  Ohio,  Illinois,  and  Michigan  all  in- 
creased in  foreign-bom  white  population.  Because  of  the  increase 
in  Mexicans  alone,  the  states  of  Texas,  Arizona,  and  California 
also  bulked  large  in  the  total. 


o 

w 
o 


OJ 


109 


110  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

The  increase  in  practically  all  the  Southern  Atlantic  states  is 
worthy  only  of  passing  notice,  Florida  being  the  only  state  in  this 
group  to  show  a  foreign-bom  white  increase  of  over  5,000.  The 
percentages  of  increase  in  these  states  showed  marked  advances 
because  of  the  small  actual  numbers  on  which  based. 

Increases  in  three  states,  Michigan,  Texas,  and  CaHfomia,  ag- 
gregated more  than  the  net  foreign-bom  white  increase  shown  by 
the  entire  country. 

INCREASE   OF   FOREIGN  BORN   IN   CITIES. 

The  tendency  of  the  foreign-bom  white  population  toward  con- 
centration in  cities  and  large  towns  has  long  been  manifest.  In 
1890,  61.8  per  cent  of  the  foreign-bom  whites  were  numbered  in 
the  urban  population.  This  proportion  increased  to  71.4  per  cent 
in  1 910,  and  by  1920  the  foreign-bom  white  population  of  the 
United  States  had  become  75.5  per  cent  urban.  Thus  at  the 
Fourteenth  Census  three  out  of  every  four  foreign-bom  white  per- 
sons in  this  country  lived  in  communities  of  2,500  inhabitants 
or  over.  On  the  other  hand,  during  tlie  decade  the  number  of 
foreign-bom  whites  in  rural  districts  decreased  12  per  cent. 

It  is  probably  true  that  this  apparent  urban  movement  of  the 
foreign  bom  does  not  represent  actual  migration  to  any  consider- 
able extent.  Certainly  during  the  decade  under  survey  the  migra- 
tion of  the  foreign  bom  to  the  cities  was  not  as  great  as  that  of  the 
native  whites  or  of  the  Negroes.  Apparent  migration  is  due  largely 
to  the  replacement  of  nationalities.  The  GeiTnans,  English,  and 
Scandinavians,  races  which  decreased  during  the  decade,  have 
always  contributed  much  lower  proportions  of  their  total  numbers 
to  the  population  of  cities  tlian  have  the  Italians,  Russian  Jews, 
and  other  races  which  showed  increases  during  the  decade.  A 
change  in  the  proportions  of  these  races  witliin  tlie  coimtry  would 
naturally  result  in  an  apparent  urbanization  movement.  By  tak- 
ing out  a  number  of  Germans  and  replacing  them  witli  Russian 
Jews,  although  the  number  of  foreign  bom  within  the  comitry 
might  be  exactly  the  same,  the  percentage  urban  would  be  made 
higher.  For  example:  During  the  last  decade  the  foreign-bom 
white  population  of  rural  communities  in  the  East  North  Central 
division  decreased  165,000,  while  the  foreign-bom  white  popula- 
tion of  urban  communities  increased  320,000.  And  yet  this  was 
only  partly  a  matter  of  urban  migration.  It  was  principally  the 
result  of  such  a  redistribution  of  nationalities,  since  during  the 
decade  the  number  of  persons  of  German  birth  witliin  this  division 


FOREIGN  WHITE  STOCK.  Ill 

decreased  about  280,000  and  the  number  of  Scandinavians  about 
30,000,  while  on  the  other  hand  the  Poles  (using  "mother  tongue" 
to  distinguish  Poles  for  1910)  increased  by  85,000,  the  Austrians 
and  Hungarians  (using  the  prewar  boundaries)  80,000,  the  Ital- 
ians 55,000,  and  the  Russians  110,000. 

What  such  a  substitution  means  can  be  realized  readily  by  refer- 
ence to  the  results  of  the  1910  census,  wliich  showed  that  while  the 
Germans  in  the  United  States  were  67  per  cent  urban  and  the  Scan- 
dinavians 53  per  cent,  the  Russian  Jews,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
87  per  cent  urban,  the  Austrians  and  Hungarians  74  per  cent,  and 
the  Italians  78  per  cent.  These  figULres  represent  the  tendency  of 
each  nationality  to  congregate  in  cities.  Any  change  such  as  that 
which  took  place  in  the  East  North  Central  division,  replacing  the 
less  urban  nationalities  with  those  more  urban  in  tendency,  would 
result  in  an  apparent  cityward  migration. 

It  is  important  in  this  connection  to  keep  constantly  in  mind  the 
fact  that  the  accumulation  of  immigrants  in  cities  is  not  a  fair  test 
of  their  tu-ban  tendencies.  Cities  are  the  natural  points  at  which 
immigrants  arrive ;  they  are  the  points  at  which  a  living  of  some 
sort  can  usually  be  secured.  The  dispersion  of  the  foreign  bom 
to  smaller  communities  and  to  rural  districts  is  at  best  a  slow 
process.  In  a  period  of  rapid  immigration,  the  cities  choke  up 
with  immigrants.  When  immigration  slackens  the  dispersion  of 
newly  arrived  foreigners  to  other  parts  of  the  country  can  better 
keep  pace  with  the  number  entering  the  various  ports. 

One  other  factor  should  be  considered.  The  native  white  was 
traditionally  migratory.  The  war  demand  for  city  workers  was 
able  to  sweep  him  into  industrial  centers.  The  Negro  was 
also  easily  attracted  to  the  cities.  These  influences  did  not  so 
easily  affect  the  rural  foreign  bom.  They  had  come  to  this 
country  in  the  main  for  economic  betterment,  had  gone  by  choice 
to  the  rural  commimities,  and  had  striven  for  and  in  general  had 
reached  positions  of  comparative  independence.  They  had  not 
been  in  the  United  States  long  enough  to  become  as  restless  as 
v/ere  the  native  whites,  even  had  they  possessed  by  inheritance  so 
great  an  instinct  for  change.  They  were  quite  contented  with 
their  rural  life.  If  these  foreign-bom  persons  had  been  by  nature 
city  dwellers,  they  would  not  have  chosen  rural  life  when  they 
entered  the  United  States.  So  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  actual 
migration  of  this  element  from  country  to  city  was  of  little  numeri- 
cal consequence. 


112  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

There  was  a  certain  type  of  migration  from  the  country  which 
must  be  mentioned,  and  that  was  the  movement  of  foreign-born 
persons  back  to  their  native  lands  for  military  service.  Pre- 
sumably, however,  this  movement  was  of  greater  consequence 
from  the  larger  cities,  where  nationalities  congregate  and  where 
enthusiasm  could  be  more  easily  aroused,  than  from  the  rural 
districts. 

INCREASE    AND    DECREASE    OF    FOREIGN-BORN    WHITE    BY 
NATIONALITY. 

Up  to  this  point  the  discussion  has  dealt  with  the  foreign  born 
mainly  as  similar  units.  Such  a  discussion  is  fruitful  from 
certain  viewpoints,  but  changes  in  nationalities  press  for  analysis. 
It  is  especially  important  to  consider  proportions  of  nationality, 
since  the  Fourteenth  Census  period  is  noteworthy  as  the  apparent 
close  of  slightly  restricted  immigration  and  the  beginning  of  an 
era  of  restriction.  The  method  chosen  for  applying  the  new  policy 
is  based  on  the  numerical  strength  of  national  groups  within  the 
country. 

For  the  purpose  of  examining  the  foreign-bom  white  population 
in  1920  and  of  comparing  it  with  that  of  19 10,  Table  27  has  been 
prepared.  There  was  an  obvious  difficulty  with  regard  to  the 
enumeration  of  the  foreign  born  at  the  census  of  1920,  arising 
from  the  transfer  of  territory  from  one  country  to  another  and  the 
formation  of  new  countries  in  Europe.  This  table  has  been 
compiled,  so  far  as  possible,  in  such  a  way  that  similar  areas  are 
made  comparable.  To  obtain  a  figure  for  1910  comparable  to 
that  shown  for  Poland  for  1920,  the  numbers  of  Austrians,  Rus- 
sians, and  Germans  who  in  19 10  claimed  Polish  as  their  mother 
tongue  have  been  subtracted  from  the  totals  for  Austria,  Russia, 
and  Germany,  respectively,  and  combined.  Alsace-Lorraine  was 
tabulated  separately  for  1920,  but  not  for  1910,  and  therefore  for 
comparison  it  was  included  with  Germany.  The  area  in  central 
Europe  was  made  comparable  only  by  comparing  the  1920  aggre- 
gate for  Austria,  Hungary,  Czechoslovakia,  and  Jugo-Slavia  with 
the  1 910  aggregate  for  Austria-Hungary,  Serbia,  and  Montenegro. 
No  adjustments  have  been  made,  however,  in  regard  to  the 
transfers  of  territory  from  Russia  and  Austria-Hungary  to  Ru- 
mania, from  Austria-Hungary  to  Italy,  from  Germany  to  Den- 
mark, from  Bulgaria  to  Jugo-Slavia  and  Greece,  and  from  Turkey 
in  Europe  to  Greece. 


FOREIGN  WHITE  STOCK. 


113 


Table  27.— Foreign-Born  White  Population  of  the  United 
States,  by  Country  oe  Birth:  1920  and  1910. 


COUNTRY    OP    BIRTH. 


All  countries 

Europe 

Northwestern  Europe ' 

England 

Scotland 

Wales 

Ireland 

Norway 

Sweden 

Denmark 

Netherlands,  Belgium,  Luxem- 
burg  

Switzerland 

France : . . 

Central  Europe ' 

Germany  and  Alsace-Lorraine . . 

Austria,  Hungary,  etc 

Poland 

Eastern  Europe  ■ 

Russia,  Lithuania,  and  Finland 

Rumania,    Bulgaria,     Albania, 

and  Turkey  in  Europe 

Southern  Europe ' 

Greece 

Italy 

Spain  and  Portugal 

Other  Europe 

Asia 

America 

Canada 

French 

Newfoundland 

Other 

Mexico 

Other  America 

Other  continents  or  islands 


13.712,754 


11,877,991 


3.794.555 
812,828 

254,567 
67,066 

1.037.233 
363.862 
625,580 
189,154 

207,037 
118,659 
118,569 

4,365,181 

1,720,423 

-1,504,780 

I. 139.978 

1.809,573 
1.685,381 

124, 192 

1,902,781 

175.972 

1,610, 109 

116,700 

5. 901 

110,450 

1,656,801 


,117,878 

307,786 

13.  242 

810,092 

478.383 
47,298 

67.512 


13.345.545 


11,787,878 


4.237.373 

876,455 

261,034 

82,479 

1.352. 155 
403.858 
665,183 
181,621 

172.518 
124,834 
117,236 

4,600,073 

2,311,085 

^1,351,104 

937,884 

1 .  423 . 645 
1,314,051 

109,594 

1.523.934 

101,264 

1,343,070 

79,600 

2,853 

64.314 

1,453, 186 


Increase  ( +  ) 

or 
decrease  (— ). 


I, 196,070 

385.083 

5.076 

810,987 

219,802 

32.238 

40, 167 


+367.209 


+  90.113 


-442,818 

—  63,627 

-  6,467 

-  IS. 413 

—314,922 

-  39.996 

-  39.603 

+     7.533 

+  34.519 

-  6.175 

+     1.333 

-234,893 

-  590.662 
+  153.676 
-1-202,094 

+385.928 
+371.330 

+  14.598 

+378.847 
+  74.708 
+267.039 
+  37.100 

+     3.048 

+  46,136 

+203,615 


-  78, 192 

-  77,297 
-I-  8,  166 

-  895 
+258,581 
+  15.060 

+  27.345 


1  Because  of  the  inclusion  of  Alsace- Lorraine  with  Germany,  and  of  Albania  in  Eastern  Europe,  in  order 
to  obtain  figures  comparable  with  those  for  1910.  the  totals  for  Northwestern,  Central,  Eastern,  and  Southern 
Europe,  as  given  in  this  table,  are  different  from  those  which  appear  in  the  Fourteenth  Census  reports. 

'  Austria,  Hungar>',  Czechoslovakia,  and  Jugo-Slavia. 

'  Austria-Hungary,  Serbia,  and  Montenegro. 

107°— 22 8 


114 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


From  Table  27  it  appears  that  the  increase  received  from 
Europe  was  about  90,000,  from  Asia  46,000,  and  from  America 
204,000.  It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  the  number  of  whites  in 
the  United  States  bom  in  Africa,  included  under  "  Other  continents 
or  islands,"  totals  5,222.  Asia  showed  the  highest  rate  of  increase, 
contributed  almost  entirely  from  Armenia  and  Syria,  the  extreme 
western  part  of  the  continent.  (It  must  be  remembered  that 
the  figures  in  Table  27  relate  only  to  the  foreign-bom  white 
population.) 

IMMIGRATION   FROM   EUROPE. 

Europe  and  America  were  the  largest  two  contributors  to  the 
foreign -bom  population  of  the  United  States.  From  1 910  to  1920 
America  for  the  first  time  surpassed  Europe  in  the  net  number  of 
foreign  born  which  it  contributed.  Europeans  in  the  United  States 
increased  from  1900  to  1910  by  almost  3,000,000,  or  33  per  cent, 
but  from  1910  to  1920  their  increase  was  less  than  a  tenth  of  a 
million — less,  indeed,  than  i  per  cent.  The  World  War  had  greatly 
reduced  immigration  from  Europe  and  had  drawn  heavily  for 
military  service  upon  the  foreign  bom  already  in  this  country. 
England,  Ireland,  Scandinavia,  and  Germany  lost  numerically, 
and  Austria- Hungary,  Poland,  Russia,  and  Italy  gained. 

From  Table  27  it  is  possible  to  compare  the  foreign-bom  white 
population  in  1920  with  that  returned  in  19 10.  Such  a  table 
affords  the  most  recent  inventory  of  the  change  in  the  composi- 
tion of  the  foreign  bom  within  the  country.  Before  examining  it 
in  more  detail  the  general  currents  of  immigration  to  the  United 
States  should  be  indicated.  Inspection  of  the  following  table  will 
show  the  tendency  of  immigration  for  80  years. 

Table  28. — Immigrants  from  Specified  Countries,  by  Decades: 

1840-1920.^ 


nUCADE. 

Ireland. 

Germany. 

Italy.                      Russia. 

I840-I850 

780,  719 
914,  119 

435, 778 
436,871 

655.  482 
403,  496 

339.  065 
M5.  937 

434,  626 
951,667 
787,  468 
718, 182 

I.  452,  970 
543,922 
341.498 
143.  945 

1,870 

9,231 
11,728 

55.  759 

307,  309 
61:5,  604 

656 
I,  621 

igro— i860         

4,536 

52,254 
26=;,  088 

1870-1880 

1880-1890 

COJ.  70-J 

2,  04!;,  S77                   I.  CQ7.  J06 

I,  109,  524 

921,957 

•  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States,  1920,  Table  6S. 

The  Irish  and  Germans  were  the  first  foreign  born  other  than 
British  to  come  to  the  United  States  in  any  great  numbers.     In 


FOREIGN  WHITE  STOCK. 


lis 


1850  the  Irish  constituted  42.8  per  cent  of  the  total  foreign  bom 
in  this  country.  In  i860,  with  a  total  foreign-bom  population 
of  4,138,000,  the  Irish  numbered  1,611,304  and  the  Germans 
1,276,000,  indicating  that  these  two  nationalities  formed  about  70 
per  cent  of  the  total.  Their  numbers  continued  to  increase  until 
in  1890  there  were  in  the  United  States  nearly  2,000,000  Irish  and 
3,000,000  Germans.  The  great  influx  from  these  two  nationalities 
began  to  slacken  by  the  Twelfth  Census,  1900,  and  the  total 
number  of  either  nationality  entering  the  country  as  immigrants 
during  the  20  years  from  1900  to  1920  failed  to  reach  half  a 
million.  Although  the  Germans  still  maintained  the  position 
which  they  first  reached  in  1880  as  the  nationality  predominating 
among  the  foreign  born  in  the  United  States,  Ireland,  first  in  1870, 
descended  to  third  position  in  19 10  and  was  sixth  in  1920. 

Paralleling  the  reduction  in  the  number  of  Irish,  the  number  of 
Germans  in  this  country  has  decreased  by  approximately  i  ,000,000 
in  the  last  20  years.  Although  during  the  10  years  1900  to  19 10 
the  decrease  was  only  about  11  per  cent,  it  amounted  to  over  25 
per  cent  for  the  decade  19 10  to  1920. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  restrictions  recently  imposed  will 
make  impossible  the  arrival  of  any  great  number  of  immigrants,  at 
least  for  half  the  decade.  The  decrease  in  the  number  of  German- 
bom,  in  general,  has  been  uniform  throughout  the  Nation.  There 
seems  to  be  very  little  net  migration  of  this  class  between  the 
states.  The  cities,  to  be  sure,  show  a  higher  rate  of  decrease 
than  the  rural  districts,  but  the  presumption  is  that  the  bulk  of 
those  who  returned  to  Germany  for  military  service  in  the  earl}^ 
years  of  the  war  were  drawn  from  the  cities.  The  national 
feeling  is  more  easily  maintained  and  aroused  when  the  national 
atmosphere  is  to  some  extent  developed  in  a  racial  group  of 
considerable  size,  such  as  is  found  only  in  cities.  Here  are  the 
rates  of  decrease  shown  by  Germans  in  some  of  the  larger  cities: 


DECREASE. 

CITY. 

DECREASE. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

Number. 

Per 
cent. 

New  York 

83, 983 
70,001 

25,  045 

30.  2 

38.4 
38.6 

Philadelphia 

St.  Louis 

Detroit 

21,714 
17,677 
14,437 

35-3 
37- 0 

32.3 

Chicago 

Milwaukee 

116  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 

With  the  rate  of  decrease  for  the  larger  cities  so  much  above 
the  general  average  of  25  per  cent,  it  is  necessarily  true  that  the 
rate  of  decrease  in  smaller  cities  or  in  the  rural  districts  must  be 
lower. 

In  1870,  87  per  cent  of  the  total  German-bom  population  of 
the  United  States  resided  in  three  geographic  divisions — the  Middle 
Atlantic,  East  North  Central,  and  West  North  Central.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  in  1910  there  were  still  84  per  cent  of  the 
Germans  in  the  same  area,  and  in  1920,  83  per  cent. 

The  two  races  which  have  shown  the  greatest  increases  in  the 
last  decade  are  the  Italians  and  the  Russians,  the  Italians  having 
increased  267,039  and  the  Russians  371,330,  the  latter  principally 
of  Jewish  blood.  This  is  a  continuation  of  an  immigration  which 
has  been  rapidly  growing  since  1880.  During  the  decade  1900  to 
19 10  the  Italian  immigrants  outnumbered,  more  than  four  to  one, 
the  Italians  already  in  the  United  States  at  the  beginning  of  the 
decade.  Over  80  per  cent  of  the  Russians  and  85  per  cent  of  the 
Italians  are  in  the  New  England,  Middle  Atlantic,  and  East  North 
Central  states.  In  40  years  the  number  of  Italians  in  the  United 
States  has  multiplied  36  times,  that  of  Russians  39  times. 

The  tendency  of  these  two  races  toward  urban  life  is  thus  very 
marked.  In  the  vState  of  New  York,  for  example,  of  the  545,000 
Italians  present  in  1920,  over  440,000,  or  81  per  cent,  were  in 
cities  having  100,000  inhabitants  or  more.  New  York  City  alone 
contained  72  per  cent  of  all  the  Italians  in  the  state.  The  Russians 
show  an  even  greater  tendency  to  concentrate  in  cities  than  the 
Italians,  nearly  nine-tenths  of  the  Russians  in  1920  being  massed 
in  urban  communities. 

The  foreign  bom  in  the  United  States,  at  first  almost  entirely 
from  northwestern  Europe  and  Germany,  at  recent  censuses  have 
shown  increased  proportions  from  the  southern  and  eastern  parts 
of  the  Continent.  Upon  the  classification  of  the  principal  countries 
contributing  to  the  foreign-bom  element  in  the  population  of  the 
United  States,  according  to  numerical  strength  at  the  last  three 
censuses,  1900,  19 10,  and  1920,  the  following  changes  appear: 


FOREIGN  WHITE  STOCK. 


117 


Table  29. — Countries  Ranked  According  to  Number  Contributed 
TO  Foreign-born  White  Population  of  the  United  States,  as 
Enumerated  in  Specified  Census  Year:   1920,  1910,  and  1900. 


Rank,  1920. 

Rank,  1910. 

Rank,  1900. 

I.  Germany. 

I.  Germany. 

I.  Germany. 

2.  Italy. 

2.  Russia. 

2.  Ireland. 

3.  Russia. 

3.  Ireland. 

3.  Canada. 

4.  Poland. 

4.  Italy. 

4.  England. 

5.  Canada. 

5.  Canada. 

5.  Sweden. 

6.  Ireland. 

6.  Austria. 

6.  Russia. 

7.  England. 

7.  England. 

7.  Austria. 

8.  Sweden. 

8.  Sweden. 

8.  Italy. 

9.  Austria. 

9.  Himgary. 

9.  Norway. 

10.  Mexico. 

10.  Norsvay. 

10.  vScotland. 

The  steady  advance  of  Italy  and  the  gradual  retirement  of 
Ireland  are  the  two  outstanding  features  of  this  table.  The  fol- 
lowing diagram  presents  in  graphic  form  the  principal  nativities 
present  in  the  foreign-born  population,  for  1920  and  1910: 


Foreign-born  Population  by  Principal  Countries  of  Birth:    1920  and  1910. 


GERMANY  AND  1920 

ALSACE-LORRAINE  1910 


ik 


HUNDREDS  OF  THOUSANDS 
S  10  16 


x/y///y>y//yyy>//./^y/^-^^y/yy^^^^ 


RUSSIA,  LITHUANIA, 
AND  FINLAND 


ITALY 

AUSTRIA  ,  HUNGARY  , 
ETC.* 

NORWAY  ,  SWEDEN  , 
AND  DENMARK 

POLAND 


IRELAND 


1920 
1910 


1920 
1910 


1920 
1910 


1920 
1910 


1920 
1910 


y//////^///////////////^//////////^^^^ 


w////J///y'///J//y////)//y////}///////>/M 


V/////^///y>/y>/^///////)///////}///y'///)//A 


ENGLAND,  SCOTLAND,  1920 

AND  WALES  '910 

CANADA    AND  '920 

NEWFOUNDLAND  '9'0 


1920 
1910 


v/y/y/////////////////}///////^////////. 


v/////}/////y/}///////>/////A  I 


'//////>///////}///////>///////>///'///?i 


'//y//^/^//y'/^/y>///////////////y>/777m 


^//////?///////.>///////////////////7777;^^ 


♦Includes,  for  1920,  Austria,  Huncary,  Czecboslovakia,  and  Jugo-SIavia,  and,  for  1910,  Austria-Hun- 
gary, Serbia,  and  Montenegro. 


118  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

IMMIGRATION   OF   MEXICANS   AND   CANADIANS. 

In  America  there  is  constant  interchange  of  population  with 
the  two  countries  bordering  on  the  north  and  south,  Canada  and 
Mexico.  There  is  considerable  uncertainty  with  regard  to  the 
permanent  residence  of  many  Mexicans  in  the  United  States  at 
the  census  date.  Although  in  the  past  there  have  been  certain 
waves  of  emigration  from  the  United  States  to  Canada,  the 
tendency  toward  the  warmer  climate  on  the  whole  strongly  pre- 
dominates. There  is  at  present,  however,  little  emigration  of 
Americans  to  Mexico. 

Of  all  the  nationalities  which  have  been  added  in  recent  years 
to  the  population  of  the  United  States,  the  Mexican  increase 
since  1900  is  especially  worthy  of  note.  In  the  decade  1900  to 
1 910  the  number  of  Mexicans  in  the  United  States  more  than 
doubled,  increasing  115  per  cent.  This  number,  219,802,  in 
turn  doubled  during  the  lo-year  period  1910  to  1920,  reaching  the 
total  of  478,383,  an  increase  of  118  percent.^  The  influx  centered 
mainly  in  three  states,  Texas,  California,  and  Arizona.  Texas 
received  nearly  50  per  cent  of  the  increase,  or  125,414.  Oil 
and  agricultural  developments  in  the  United  States  and  un- 
settled poUtical  and  economic  conditions  in  Mexico  are  probably  in 
the  main  responsible.  In  1920  practically  one-quarter  of  a  million 
of  the  population  of  Texas  were  of  Mexican  birth.  Adding  Arizona 
and  California  to  Texas  accounts  for  about  80  per  cent  of  the  in- 
crease of  Mexicans.  The  fact  that  these  three  states  reported  this 
noteworthy  influx  during  the  decade  placed  them  before  all  the 
other  states  in  rate  of  increase  of  foreign  born  from  19 10  to  1920, 
the  foreign-born  white  of  Arizona  increasing  67  per  cent,  of  Texas 
50  per  cent,  and  of  California  32  per  cent.  The  immigration  of 
Mexicans  during  the  previous  decade  to  the  same  three  states 
represented  also  about  80  per  cent  of  the  increase  of  that  nation- 
ality in  the  United  States.  Because  of  the  shortness  of  the  period 
under  investigation,  and  of  the  extremely  abnormal  conditions 
.prevailing  in  Mexico  near  and  after  the  end  of  the  Diaz  regime 
in  1 911,  up  to  the  end  of  the  decade,  the  permanence  of  such  a 
movement  can  not  be  determined. 

Table  30  shows  the  distribution,  by  geographic  divisions,  of  the 
British  Canadians  in  the  United  States,  as  enumerated  at  the 
censuses  of  1920  and  19 10. 

*  It  is  probable  that  many  Mexicans  of  mixed  white  and  Indian  blood,  in  whom 
the  Indian  strain  predominated,  were  improperly  classed  as  white. 


FOREIGN  WHITE  STOCK. 


119 


Table  30. — Number  of  White  Canadians,  Other  Than  French,  by 
Geographic  Divisions:  1920  and  1910. 


GEOGRAPHIC  DI\nsIO>f. 


Total 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic.  . .  . 
East  North  Central . 
West  North  Central 
South  Atlantic .  .  .  . 
East  South  Central . 
West  South  Central 

Mountain 

Pacific 


810,092 


233.971 
120,049 
222,213 

69.785 

12,059 

2,967 

8,105 

30.185 
110,758 


810,987 


245.859 
119.959 
223,672 

84.055 

7.725 
3,096 

7.509 
30,896 
88,216 


The  British  Canadians  in  the  United  States  showed  practically 
no  change  in  number,  and  apparently  there  was  little  migration  of 
British  Canadians  within  the  United  States ;  New  England  and  the 
East  North  Central  states  still  maintained  the  majority  and  re- 
tained it  in  similar  proportion.  The  French  Canadians,  on  the  other 
hand,  have  not  proved  as  stable  but  have  shown  a  decided  decrease. 
This  was  not  a  new  tendency  on  their  part.  During  the  previous 
decade  they  decreased  9,378,  or  2.4  per  cent.  This  tendency,  so 
slight  in  that  decade,  increased  to  considerable  proportions  between 
1 9 1 o  and  1920,  during  which  period  the  number  of  French  Canadians 
in  the  United  States  decreased  by  77,297,  or  20  per  cent.  Michi- 
gan, New  York,  and  New  England  are  the  areas  reporting  the 
largest  numbers  of  French  Canadians.  In  19 10  over  two-thirds 
of  this  class  of  the  foreign-born  population  were  concentrated  in 
New  England,  half  of  them  being  in  the  single  state  of  Massa- 
chusetts. The  decrease,  however,  was  not  proportionally  as  great 
in  this  group  of  states  as  in  the  rest  of  the  country,  New  England 
with  two-thirds  of  the  French  Canadians  bearing  only  one-half  of 
the  decrease.  The  states  which  lost  most  heavily  were  New  York, 
Michigan,  and  Minnesota.  The  decrease  for  New  England  was 
low  enough  to  indicate  a  reduction  due  mainly  to  mortality.  The 
rate  for  the  rest  of  the  country,  however,  was  so  high  as  to  raise 
the  presumption  that  a  considerable  return  to  Canada  had  taken 
place. 


120  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

AGE   CHANGES   AMONG   TllE   FOREIGN   BORN. 

Considerable  light  on  age  changes  during  the  decade  is  found 
by  a  comparison  of  age  distribution  of  the  foreign-bom  whites 
in  the  United  States  as  returned  in  1910  and  1920. 


PER  CENT  DISTRIBUTION. 

1920 

1910 

Under  18  years 

6.2 

54-3 
39-5 

8.1 

18—44.  vears 

57.6 
34-3 

4C  vears  and  over 

The  checking  of  immigration  during  the  last  five  years  of  the 
decade  resulted  in  the  changes  of  age  distribution  noted.  There 
is  a  decided  increase  in  the  proportion  over  45  for  1920  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  younger  groups.  If  there  were  no  immigration,  in  45 
years  obviously  100  per  cent  would  be  over  45  years  of  age.  It 
is  necessary  for  immigrants  to  arrive  continually  in  order  to  main- 
tain an  unchanged  age  distribution.  The  decade  developed  an- 
other cause  of  change  in  age  proportions,  the  emigration  of  men 
to  their  native  lands  for  military  service,  which  drew  only  from 
the  younger  adults.  This  "growing  old"  among  the  foreign  born 
as  a  whole  is  exactly  the  process  that  has  been  going  on  for  40 
years  among  the  Irish  and  Germans — a  decrease  in  immigration 
and  a  correspondingly  larger  and  larger  proportion  in  the  older 
age  groups.  Since  the  average  age  is  higher,  the  mortality  rate 
must  be  higher. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  Irish  have  shown  the  greatest  rate 
of  decrease,  by  and  large,  in  the  districts  in  which  they  are  fewest, 
the  average  rate  of  decrease  being  23  per  cent  and  that  for  the  five 
agricultural  districts,  exclusive  of  the  Pacific  division,  averaging 
33.  The  three  industrial  groups  of  states  showed  a  lower  aver- 
age rate,  23  per  cent,  while  the  Pacific  division,  with  a  rate  of  14, 
demonstrated  either  a  migration  to  that  division  or  that  a  younger 
group  of  Irish  with  a  lower  death  rate  resided  there. 

CHANGES   IN    PREDOMINATING    NATIONALITIES    IN    LARGE    CITIES. 

It  remains  to  point  out  the  changes  which  occurred  from  19 10  to 
1920  in  dominant  nationalities  in  the  principal  urban,  and  hence 
foreign-bom,  centers.  The  foreigners  upon  entering  the  country 
tend  to  concentrate  in  certain  cities,  where  their  countrymen  are 


FOREIGN  WHITE  STOCK. 


121 


numerous  and  where  their  previous  European  environment  can  to 
some  extent  be  reproduced.  The  decade  from  1 900  to  1 9 1 o  showed 
very  few  changes  in  the  nationalities  predominating  within  cities. 
Below  is  Table  31 ,  making  comparison  of  the  same  cities  in  19 10 
and  1920.  Were  the  comparison  to  include  1900,  the  decade  1900- 
19 10  would  show  but  9  changes  in  the  leading  two  nationalities  for 
the  19  cities  here  considered. 

Table)  31. — Dominant  Nationalities  Among  Foreign-born  Whites 
IN  Cities  Having,  in  1920,  Over  250,000  Inhabitants:  1920  and  1910, 


1920 

1910 

First. 

Second. 

First. 

Second. 

Baltimore 

Russians. 

Irish. 

Poles. 

Poles. 

Germans. 

Poles. 

Canadians. 

Italians. 

Mexicans. 

Germans. 

Swedes. 

Italians. 

Russians. 

Italians. 

Russians. 

Germans. 
Germans. 
Italians. 
Russians. 

Germans. 

Canadians. 

Germans. 

Germans. 

Russians. 

Htmgarians. 

Poles. 

Irish. 

Canadians. 

Poles. 

Norwegians. 

Germans. 

Italians. 

Russians. 

Irish. 

Poles. 
Russians. 
Germans. 
Irish. 

Germans. 

Irish. 

Germans. 

Germans. 

Germans. 

Austrians. 
Germans. 
Germans. 
Germans. 
Germans. 

Swedes. 

Italians. 

Russians. 

Germans. 

Russians. 

Germans. 
Germans. 
Germans. 
'     Irish. 

Russians. 

Boston 

Canadians. 

Buffalo 

Canadians. 

Chicago 

Austrians. 

Cincinnati 

Hungarians. 

Cleveland 

Germans. 

Detroit 

Canadians. 

Jersey  City 

Irish. 

Los  Angeles 

Canadians. 

Milwaukee 

Russians. 

Minneaf)olis 

Norwegians. 

New  Orleans 

Germans. 

New  York 

Italians. 

Newark 

Russians. 

Philadelphia 

Irish. 

Pittsburgh 

Russians. 

St.  Louis 

Russians. 

San  Francisco 

Irish. 

Washington 

Germans. 

The  decade  1910  to  1920  shows  changes  in  13  of  the  19  cities. 
Some,  however,  are  due  to  the  introduction  of  Poland  as  a  nation- 
ality, and  may  not  signify  much  change  in  the  predominance  of 
nationalities.  The  remaining  six  cities  maintained  the  same  two 
nationalities  in  the  same  order  of  rank  in  both  1910  and  1920. 
In  Boston  the  Irish  still  hold  first  place  and  the  Canadians  second, 
but  the  latter  show  a  considerable  decrease  for  the  decade  and 
are  closely  followed  by  the  Russians  and  Italians.  Minneapolis, 
New  Orleans,  New  York  City,  St.  Louis,  and  Philadelphia  all 
reported  no  change  during  the  decade,  but  the  Italians  in  Phila- 
delphia lacked  less  than  1,000  of  exceeding  the  Irish,  increasing  in 
number  as  the  Irish  decreased.  Los  Angeles  alone  of  all  large 
cities  showed  two  foreign-bom  American  nationalities  predomi- 
nating— Mexicans  first,  Canadians  second. 


122  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

A  cross  section  the  other  way  proves  equally  interesting.  In 
1 910  Germans  predominated  in  12  of  the  19  cities  and  were  second 
in  three.  In  1920  the  number  of  cities  in  which  Germans  pre- 
dominated had  dropped  to  4,  while  those  in  which  they  held 
second  place  had  increased  to  5.  In  6  cities  the  German  element 
had  dropped  out  of  the  first  two  places  entirely.  Arising  to  take 
the  place  of  the  Germans  were  the  Itahans  and  the  Russians,  each 
having  achieved  primacy  in  4  cities,  although  Italy  led  in  but  i 
and  Russia  in  but  2  in  1910.  Poland,  a  country  which  may  have 
been  represented  by  Austrians,  Russians,  or  Germans  in  the  19 10 
list,  led  in  three  cities  and  was  second  in  three  others  in  1920. 

This  analysis  has  made  it  clear  that  there  was  in  progress 
during  the  decade  19 10  to  1920  a  continued  and  increasing  de- 
cline of  the  German  and  Irish  races  in  urban  leadership  and 
a  marked  increase  in  the  number  of  Italians,  Russians,  and 
Poles.  In  practically  every  large  city  the  Irish  bom  and  German 
bom,  so  long  dominant,  are  yielding  to  the  foreign  bom  of  southern 
Europe  and  depending  in  part  for  their  influence  in  the  com- 
munity upon  those  modifications  of  national  temperaments  and 
behefs  which  appear  in  the  partially  Americanized  natives  of 
German  and  Irish  parentage.  The  new  immigration  restrictions 
will  tend  to  alter  conditions,  and  it  remains  for  the  next  census  to 
point  out  the  part  which  these  foreign  nationalities  are  to  play  in 
the  United  States. 


XI. 
NEGRO  POPULATION. 

The  original  centers  of  Negro  population  within  the  United 
States,  as  determined  by  the  First  Census  in  1 790,  were  the  states 
of  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  the  Carolinas.  These  four  states  re- 
turned, at  that  time,  nearly  87  per  cent  of  the  total  number. 
They  were  employed  almost  exclusively  in  the  cultivation  of 
tobacco  and  as  household  servants.  With  the  development  and 
expansion  of  cotton  growing  in  the  South  and  Southwest,  and  with 
the  embargo  of  1808  against  the  importation  of  slaves,  it  was  found 
advantageous  to  increase  the  labor  resources  of  the  lower  South  in 
connection  with  the  increasing  cultivation  of  cotton.  From  a 
study  of  the  census  statistics  for  the  period  prior  to  the  Civil  War 
it  is  found  that  in  the  more  northerly  states  of  the  South  the  slave 
population  was  proportionally  smaller  and  increased  less  rapidly 
than  in  the  far  South,  and  that  in  general  in  the  more  newly  settled 
of  the  far  Southern  states  the  slave  population  increased  more 
rapidly  than  the  white  population.  The  census  returns  therefore 
reflect  the  economic  facts  that  slave  labor  was  most  valuable  in 
the  lower  South,  and  that  with  the  development  of  newly  opened 
areas  in  that  section  the  tendency  to  employ  slave  labor  increased.^ 
In  i860  the  states  which  now  constitute  the  South  Atlantic,  East 
South  Central,  and  West  South  Central  divisions  contained  92 
per  cent  of  all  the  Negroes  in  the  United  States. 

The  Civil  War  released  the  bonds  which  required  the  Negro  to 
remain  in  any  specific  part  of  the  country,  but  it  is  significant  that 
at  the  end  of  a  period  of  50  years,  during  which  the  number  of 
Negroes  in  the  United  States  more  than  doubled,  the  census  of 
1 9 10  found  89  per  cent  of  this  race  still  resident  in  the  Southern 
states.  Until  19 10  there  seems  to  have  been  no  force  sufficient  to 
bring  about  any  considerable  and  rapid  shifting  of  the  Negro  popu- 
lation. Such  a  force  was  suppHed  by  the  World  War  and  the 
accompanying  demands  for  unskilled  labor  during  the  decade  19 10 
to  1920,  resulting  in  a  marked,  though  perhaps  temporary,  redis- 
tribution.    Tliis    developed   in   two   ways:  first,    a   considerable 

'A  Centnr>'^  of  Population  Growth,  p.  133;  Brown,  Lower  South  in  American 
History,  p.  23. 

123 


124 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


breaking  up  of  the  concentration  of  Negro  population  in  the 
Southern  states,  with  a  wider  distribution;  and  second,  the  move- 
ment of  a  surprisingly  large  number  of  indi\'iduals  of  a  race 
historically  agricultural  toward  urban  communities.  These 
changes,  coupled  with  the  sharp  decline  in  the  rate  of  increase,  are 
of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  examination  in  some  detail. 
The  following  statement  shows  the  percentages  which  the  Negro 
population  of  the  Southern  states  formed  of  the  total  Negro  popu- 
lation of  the  United  States  in  i860,  1890,  1900,  19 10,  and  1920, 
and  gives  certain  other  percentages  of  interest  in  this  connection: 


CENSUS   VEAK. 


Per  cent  of 
Negro  popula- 
tion in 
Southern 
states. 


Per  cent  of 
native  Negro 
population  of 
United  States 

remaining 
in  state  of  birth 


Per  cent  urban 
in  Negro  pop- 
ulation of 
United  States. 


Percent 
rural  in 
Negro 
popula- 
tion of 
United 
States. 


i860 
1890 
1900 
1910 
1920 


92.  2 

90-3 
89.7 
89.0 

85.2 


85.2 
84.4 

83-4 
80.  I 


(') 
19.8 
22.  7 
27.4 

34- o 


0) 
8a2 

77-3 
72.  6 
66.0 


'  No  data  available. 

^  Relates  to  total  colored  population,  including  Indian,  Chinese,  and  Japanese;  not  computed  sep- 
arately for  Negro  population. 

In  1920  the  Negro  population  of  the  United  States  numbered 
10,463,131.  This  represented  a  lo-year  increase  of  635,000,  or 
6.5  per  cent,  the  lowest  thus  far  recorded.  In  consequence  of  this 
slow  numerical  progress  the  proportion  formed  by  Negroes  in  the 
total  population  declined  from  10.7  per  cent  in  1910  to  9.9  per  cent 
in  1920.  The  liighest  proportion,  19.3  percent,  was  recorded  in 
1790.  One  hundred  and  thirty  years  later,  at  the  census  of  1920, 
the  proportion  had  shrunk  to  slightly  more  than  half  its  original 
size.  At  the  census  of  18 10  Negroes  showed  the  greatest  per- 
centage of  increase,  37.5,  derived  from  a  numerical  increase  of 
375,000,  or  more  than  one-half  that  recorded  1 10  years  later.  The 
decennial  increases  from  1850  to  1910  ranged  from  765,000  to 
double  that  number,  and  thus  the  increase  for  19 10  to  1920  was 
lower  than  for  any  previous  decade  since  1 840.  The  Negro  increase 
was  greater  at  each  of  the  last  two  censuses  before  emancipation 
than  at  a  census  taken  more  than  half  a  century  after  that  event. 

For  about  a  century  the  growth  of  the  Negro  population  in  the 
United  States  has  been  derived  almost  exclusively  from  natural 


NEGRO  POPULATION.  125 

increase — that  is,  the  excess  of  births  over  deaths — whereas  white 
increase  has  been  assisted  at  every  census  by  immigration. 

Tables  59  and  60,  to  be  found  on  pages  244  and  246,  present  some 
interesting  comparisons  of  increase  of  whites  and  Negroes  in  states 
in  which  large  proportions  of  the  population  are  Negro. 

Marked  tendencies  toward  interstate  migration  and  concentra- 
tion in  cities  are  significant  changes  shown  for  Negroes  by  the 
Fourteenth  Census.  In  19 10,  89  per  cent  of  the  Negroes  resided 
in  the  area  comprising  the  South  Atlantic,  East  South  Central, 
and  West  South  Central  states.  Their  rate  of  increase  in  this 
area  during  the  following  decade  was  1.9  per  cent,  and  in  the 
East  South  Central  division  an  actual  decrease  took  place.  The 
remainder  of  the  country,  the  North  and  West,  which  in  19 10 
had  returned  1 1  per  cent  of  the  Negro  population,  showed  a  very 
large  relative  increase.  The  census  returns  for  1920  make  it  evi- 
dent that  the  Negro  increase  was  not  extensive  in  the  districts 
which  already  were  well  populated  with  that  race,  but  rather  in 
those  in  which  Negroes  had  never  been  numerous.  Clearly  this 
was  a  readjustment  not  resulting  from  changing  birth  and  death 
rates  but  due  to  migration. 

In  the  analysis  of  population  change  in  Mississippi,  reference  was 
made  to  the  considerable  migration  of  Negroes  northward  during 
the  war.  One  of  the  results  of  this  migration  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  in  the  9  states  in  which  in  1920  Negroes  formed  more  than 
one-fourth  the  total  population  the  increase  of  white  population 
was  greater  from  19 10  to  1920  than  that  of  the  Negro  population, 
so  that  in  these  states,  strongholds  of  Negro  population,  the 
proportion  of  Negroes  decreased  as  compared  with  that  of  the 
whites.  As  a  tendency,  however,  this  is  not  altogether  a  develop- 
ment of  the  Fourteenth  Census.  With  the  exception  of  a  slight 
increase  in  1880,  the  proportion  of  Negroes  in  the  South  Atlantic 
division  has  been  decreasing  from  census  to  census  since  1850, 
when  it  stood  at  39.8  per  cent,  until  in  1920  it  was  only  30.9 
per  cent;  while  in  the  West  South  Central  division  the  proportion 
of  Negroes  decreased  from  39.2  per  cent  in  1850  to  20.1  per  cent 
in  1920.  This  is  the  result  in  part  of  northward  Negro  migration 
and  in  part  of  slow  Negro  increase  as  compared  with  that  of 
whites,  and  also  in  some  measure,  especially  in  the  West  South 
Central  division,  to  migration  of  whites  southward. 

The  increased  tendency  of  Negroes  to  move  from  rural  to  urban 
communities  is  largely  a  development  of  the  recent  decade.     The 


136 


NEGRO  POPULATION.  127 

Negro  has  generally  been  regarded  as  most  effective  and  useful 
in  agricultural  callings.  In  1910  the  number  living  in  communi- 
ties having  2,500  inhabitants  or  more  constituted  only  27.4  per 
cent  of  the  total  Negro  population;  but  during  the  decade  which 
followed,  the  great  demand  for  unskilled  labor  and  the  restlessness 
characteristic  of  the  times  drew  Negroes  to  cities  in  large  numbers. 
From  1910  to  1920  the  Negro  population  of  urban  communities 
increased  one- third,  while  that  of  rural  communities  decreased. 
At  the  time  of  the  taking  of  the  Fourteenth  Census  over  one- 
third  of  the  entire  Negro  population  had  become  urban. 

Nearly  235,000  Negroes  removed  to  cities  in  the  South  Atlantic 
division,  and  nearly  the  same  number  to  cities  in  the  East  North 
Central  states.  Certain  of  the  Northern  states  having  small  urban 
Negro  populations  in  19 10  showed  astonishing  proportional 
increases.  Michigan,  for  example,  increased  its  urban  Negro 
population  352.5  per  cent,  though  the  actual  numerical  increase 
was  only  42,000.  In  the  East  South  Central  group  of  states, 
although  each  state  lost  Negro  population,  this  loss  was  wholly 
rural,  for  the  urban  Negro  population  in  the  entire  division  in- 
creased over  62,000,  or  12  per  cent.  Mississippi,  the  state  with 
the  greatest  decrease,  in  spite  of  a  total  decline  of  nearly  75,000  in 
Negro  population,  showed  an  urban  Negro  increase  of  3.4  per  cent. 

The  migration  of  Negroes,  however,  tended  principally  to  the 
large  industrial  centers  of  the  North.  The  Negro  population  of 
Chicago  increased  from  44,103  in  1910  to  109,458  in  1920;  that 
of  Detroit  increased  from  5,741  in  1910  to  40,838  in  1920; 
and  Cleveland,  with  8,448  Negroes  in  1910,  reported  34,451  in 
1920.  The  increase  in  cities  was  not  confined  to  those  in  the 
Northern  Central  states.  New  York  City,  having  91,709  Negroes 
in  1910,  showed  an  increase  to  152,467  by  1920.  In  practically 
every  large  city  in  the  country  there  was  a  marked  growth  in 
the  Negro  element. 

The  extent  to  which  the  Negroes  have  become  dwellers  in  large 
urban  communities,  together  with  the  increase  in  this  tendency 
between  1900  and  1920,  is  strikingly  indicated  in  Table  32,  on 
page  128.  It  is  seldom,  indeed,  that  the  returns  of  the  Federal 
census  reflect  such  a  wide  and  general  racial  movement. 

It  will  be  observed  that  for  the  decade  1900  to  19 10  the  rate 
of  increase  in  the  combined  Negro  population  of  the  24  cities  for 
which  figures  are  presented  in  Table  32   was  only  about  two 


128 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


and  one-half  times  as  large  as  the  rate  of  increase  in  the  Negro 
population  of  the  entire  country  (11.2  per  cent),  whereas  the 
recent  decade  shows  for  these  same  cities  a  rate  of  Negro  increase 
six  and  one-half  times  as  large  as  that  for  the  Negro  population 
of  the  country  as  a  whole.     During  the  earlier  decade  the  increase 

Table  32. — Negro  Population  and  Increase  in  Negro  Popula- 
tion OF  Cities  Having,  in  1920,  More  than  25,000  Negro  In- 
habitants: 1920,   1 9 10,  AND  1900. 


Total 

New  York,  N.Y.. 
Philadelphia,  Pa.. 
Washington,  D.  C 

Chicago,  111 

Baltimore,  Md ... 

New  Orleans,  La. . 
Birmingham,  Ala . 

St.  Louis,  Mo 

Atlanta,  Ga , 

Memphis,  Tenn. . , 

Richmond,  Va 

Norfolk,  Va 

Jacksonville,  Fla. . 

Detroit,  Mich 

Louisville,  Ky. . . . 

Savannah,  Ga 

Pittsburgh,  Pa.... 
Nashville,  Tenn... 
Indianapolis,  Ind . 
Cleveland,  Ohio. . . 

Houston,  Tex 

Charleston,  S.  C. . . 
Kansas  City,  Mo .  . 
Cincinnati,  Ohio. . 


NEGRO  POPULATION. 


1,508,061 


1,060,510 


825,364 


152,467 

91,709 

134.229 

84,459 

109, 966 

94,446 

109,458 

44,103 

108,322 

84, 749 

100,930 

89,262 

70, 230 

52,305 

69,854 

43,960 

62,796 

51.902 

61,181 

52,441 

54.041 

46, 733 

43-392 

25,039 

4I,S20 

29,  293 

40, 838 

5,741 

40,087 

40, 522 

39.179 

33.246 

37,725 

25.623 

35,633 

36,523 

34. 678 

21,816 

34.451 

8,448 

33.960 

23,929 

32.326 

31.056 

30,7'9 

23,566 

30,079 

19,639 

60,666 

62,613 
86, 702 
30,  ISO 
79, 258 

77,714 
16,575 
35,516 
35,727 
49,910 

32,230 
20,  230 
16,  236 
4,  III 
39. 139 

38,090 
20, 355 
30.044 
15.931 
5,988 

14,608 
31.522 
17.567 
14,482 


INCREASE   IN   NEGRO   POPULATION. 


Number.    Per  cent. 


447,551 


60,758 
49, 770 
15,520 
65.355 
23,  573 

11,668 

17,925 
25,894 
10, 894 
8,740 

7.308 
18,353 
12, 227 
35.097 

—435 

5-933 
12, 102 

—890 
12,862 
26,003 

10,031 
1,270 
7.153 

10,440 


42.  2 


66.3 
58.9 
16.  4 


13- I 
34-3 
58.9 

21.  O 
16.7 

15-6 

73-3 

41.7 

611.  3 

— I.  I 

17.8 
47.2 

—2.4 
59.0 

307.8 

41.9 

4.  I 

30.  4 

53-2 


Number.    Per  cent 


235. 146 


31.043 

21,846 

7.744 

13.953 

5,491 

11,548 
35,730 

8,444 
16,175 

2.531 

14.  503 
4,809 

13.057 
1.630 
1,383 

5.156 
5.268 
6,479 
5.885 
2,460 

9.321 
—466 
5.999 
S.IS7 


28.5 


SI- 2 

34-9 
8.9 

46- 3 
6.9 

14.9 

2IS-6 

23.8 

45-3 

5-  I 

45.0 
23.8 
80.4 
39-6 
3-5 

18.4 
25.9 

21.  6 
36.9 
it.t 

63.8 
— i-S 

34-  I 
35-6 


in  the  number  of  Negroes  residing  in  large  American  cities  was 
merely  in  harmony  with  the  general  tendency  sho^^'n  by  both 
whites  and  Negroes;  but  the  increase  during  the  war  decade  of 
Negroes  in  the  large  cities  to  a  number  nearly  50  per  cent  larger 
than  that  reported  in  19 10  affords  perhaps  the  most  vivid  statis- 
tical picture  yet  revealed  of  the  call  of  the  great  centers  of  industry 


NEGRO  POPULATION.  129 

and  commerce  for  more  and  yet  more  unskilled  labor,  and  of  the 
systematic  attempt  in  all  quarters  of  the  country  to  substitute 
the  Negro  worker  for  the  unskilled  foreigner  who  had  suddenly 
ceased  to  arrive  in  America. 

It  is  significant  that  of  these  24  cities  only  2  showed  decreases 
in  Negro  population  during  the  last  decade  and  only  i  showed 
a  rate  of  increase  less  than  the  average  rate  for  the  Negro  popu- 
lation of  the  entire  country,  while  the  rates  for  the  remaining  21 
cities  ranged  from  twice  to  94  times  as  high  as  that  for  the  Negro 
population  of  the  country  as  a  whole.  The  distinctly  northern 
cities  seem  to  have  recorded  the  largest  increases  in  Negro  popu- 
lation. That  is,  those  cities  farther  away  from  the  historic  areas 
of  Negro  residence  benefited  most  largely  by  the  widespread 
urban  tendency  of  the  race. 

This  extremely  interesting  table  suggests  a  question  of  much 
future  economic  importance:  Were  foreign  immigration  to  be 
resumed  in  the  future  on  a  scale  commensurate  with  immigra- 
tion from  1890  to  1900  or  during  the  period  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  war,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  Negro,  less 
in  demand  because  of  greater  labor  supply,  would  tend  to  drift 
back  to  his  former  environment.  But  immigration,  for  the  first 
time  in  Federal  history,  has  been  restricted,  and  if  this  restriction 
continues,  and  unskilled  labor  in  prosperous  times  becomes  again 
at  a  premium,  is  the  Negro  to  respond  to  the  demand  as  during 
the  war  and  continue  to  increase  in  urban  centers  during  the 
present  and  subsequent  decades  at  rates  resembling  those  shown 
for  the  war  period  ? 

Should  this  prove  to  be  the  case  the  effect  upon  the  labor  supply 
in  the  South  (and  thus  upon  southern  industry  and  agricultmre) 
and  upon  the  Negro  race  itself  will  be  very  marked. 

This  readjustment  of  Negro  population  was  a  direct  response, 
on  the  one  hand,  to  the  need  for  labor  arising  from  the  checking 
of  the  incoming  immigration  and  the  departure  of  foreigners, 
leaving  work  to  be  done  and  few  to  do  it,  and  on  the  other,  to 
the  growing  demand  for  labor  resulting  from  increased  activity  in 
all  industries  because  of  war  stimulation — an  increase  occurring 
just  as  the  normal  supply  of  foreign-born  laborers  had  been  de- 
pleted. Whether  the  Negroes  who  migrated  to  cities  in  response 
to  these  highly  abnormal  conditions  will  continue  to  prefer  urban 
environment,  or  will  tend  to  return  to  their  original  homes  or 
seek  rural  life  elsewhere,  will  be  revealed  at  later  censuses. 

107°— 22 9 


130 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


The  census  returns  for  1920,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  Negro 
population,  have  been  analyzed  by  Prof.  Walter  F.  Willcox,  of 
Cornell  University,  well  known  as  an  authority  on  statistics  of 
Negroes  and  author  of  the  first  comprehensive  analysis  of  Negro 
statistics,  made  just  after  the  Twelfth  Census  (1900).  Prof. 
Willcox  reaches  some  interesting  conclusions :  ^ 

"The  remarkable  fall  in  the  rates  of  Negro  increase  and  the 
rapid  distribution  of  Negroes  over  other  parts  of  the  country  than 
the  South  are  the  striking  changes  revealed  by  the  census  figures. 
How  is  the  fall  in  the  rate  of  increase  to  be  explained?  Has  it 
any  connection  with  the  growth  of  interstate  migration?  To  get 
light  upon  these  questions  we  turn  from  the  census  figm-es  of  Hving 
population  to  the  registration  figures  of  births  and  deaths.  Since 
1900  the  United  States  has  been  developing  toward  a  national 
system  of  vital  statistics  by  voluntary  cooperation  between  the 
Federal  Government  and  the  governments  of  the  states  and  cities. 
For  five  years,  19 15  to  19 19,  inclusive,  the  births  and  deaths  of 
Negroes  have  been  recorded  in  a  number  of  Northern  states, 
including  the  New  England  states,  New  York,  Pennsylvania, 
Michigan,  and  Minnesota,  and  for  a  shorter  period  the  same  facts 
for  several  other  Northern  and  a  few  Southern  states  are  known. 
The  figures  for  the  Northern  states  are  as  follows : 

Births  and  Deaths  of  Negroes  in  Northern  States:  191 5-1 91 9. 


Births. 


Deaths. 


Natural 
decrease. 


Deaths  to 
100  births. 


Total 

New  England  states 

New  York 

Pennsylvania 

Michigan 

Minnesota 


56,142 


8.634 
19,088 
24,924 

2,971 

525 


64.587 


9,  lOI 
20,342 
30,786 

3.488 
870 


8,445 


467 

1.254 
5.862 

517 
345 


114 


105 
106 

130 
"7 
165 


"In  each  of  these  divisions  Negro  deaths  outnumbered  Negro 
births  by  between  5  and  65  per  cent,  and  in  consequence  the 
increase  of  Negroes  in  all  these  states  has  been  entirely  due  to 
migration. 

'  "Distribution  and  Increase  of  Negroes  in  the  United  States,"  a  paper  read  by 
Prof.  Walter  F.  Willcox,  of  Cxjmell  University,  before  the  American  Eugenics  Con- 
gress, New  York,  September  21,  1921,  amplifying  his  earlier  article,  "Negro, "in  a 
new  volume  of  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  (1922). 


NEGRO  POPULATION. 


131 


"In  the  Southern  states  the  following  compilation  of  all  available 
figures  shows  results  wliich  are  widely  different: 


Total. 


Maryland 

District  of  Columbia. 

Virginia 

Kentucky 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 


Years  covered. 


Births. 


196,487 


1916-1919 
1915-1919 
1917-1919 
1917-1919 
1917-1919 
1919 


25,418 
I I , 042 

57.244 
12,460 
67,724 
22,599 


Deaths. 


156,140 


25.407 
13,280 
42,971 
17,410 
42,633 
14.439 


Natural 

increase  or 

decrease  (  — ). 


40,347 


Deaths 
to  100 
births. 


79 


-2,238 
14.273 

-4.950 

25,091 

8,160 


100 
120 

74 

140 

62 

64 


White 
deaths 
to  100 
births. 


52 


68 
81 
48 
51 
41 
39 


"In  every  one  of  the  Northern  states  Negro  deaths  outnumber 
births;  in  the  Southern  states,  in  general,  the  conditions  are 
reversed. 

"The  difference  between  city  and  country  is  at  least  as  influ- 
ential upon  race  increase  as  the  difference  between  South  and 
North,  which  in  this  case  closely  parallels  it.  Throughout  the 
North  and  in  the  cities  of  the  South  Negro  deaths  are  more  nu- 
merous than  Negro  births;  in  fact,  southern  cities  are  even  more 
unfavorable  than  those  of  the  North  to  natural  increase. 

"Between  1910  and  1920  the  number  of  Negro  children  under 
5  years  of  age  in  the  United  States  decreased  by  nearly  120,000 
(i  19,425) ,  or  almost  10  per  cent,  and  the  number  of  white  children 
increased  by  more  than  1,000,000  (1,051,007),  or  more  than  11 
per  cent.  In  1920  for  the  first  time  the  proportion  of  white 
children  to  white  women  exceeded  that  of  Negro  children  to 
Negro  women,  the  difference  being  42  per  1,000.  For  each  race 
the  birth  rate  as  thus  roughly  meastu-ed  fell;  but  among  the 
Negroes  the  fall  was  17  per  cent,  among  the  whites  it  was  2.5 
per  cent.  In  the  South  the  number  of  Negro  children  under  5 
years  of  age  decreased  between  1910  and  1920  by  nearly  150,000 
(148,521),  or  12.7  per  cent;  and  the  number  of  white  children 
increased  by  134,000  (134,036),  or  4.7  per  cent.  At  the  present 
time,  the  proportion  of  children  to  women  among  southern 
Negroes  is  only  about  five-sixths  of  what  it  is  among  southern 
whites. 

"These  changes  will  doubtless  prove  to  be  closely  connected 
with  the  rapid  urbanization  of  Negroes  between  19 10  and  1920. 
The  rural  Negro  population  of  the  United  States  decreased  in  that 
decade  by  nearly  one-fourth  of  a  million  (239,308) ,  or  3.4  per  cent; 
while  the  urban  Negro  population  increased  by  seven-eighths  of  a 
million  (874,616),  or  32.7  per  cent.  In  the  rural  districts,  the 
proportion  of  Negro  children  in  19 10  was  7  per  cent  greater  and 
in  1920  it  was  5  per  cent  less  than  the  proportion  of  white  chil- 


132  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

clren.  Under  these  conditions  the  swarming  of  Negroes  into  cities 
North  and  South  and  the  sharp  fall  in  the  increase  of  all  Ameri- 
can Negroes  are  related  almost  as  cause  and  effect. 

"If  the  rate  of  increase  between  1900  and  1920  be  projected 
through  the  rest  of  the  century  without  change,  it  would  yield  at 
its  close  about  20,500,000  as  the  maximum  limit  of  Negro  popu- 
lation. It  also  seems  reasonable  to  anticipate  that  the  Negroes, 
who  at  the  census  of  1790  were  over  19  per  cent,  or  nearly  one- 
fifth,  of  the  population  of  the  country'  and  now  are  about  one- 
tenth,  are  likely  b\'  the  end  of  the  century  to  be  not  more  than 
one-twentieth. " 


XII. 

INDIANS,  CHINESE,  AND  JAPANESE. 

The  total  population  of  the  United  States  in  1920  included  the 
following:  Indians,  244,437;  Chinese,  61,639;  Japanese,  111,010. 
In  the  preceding  pages  of  this  analysis  no  consideration  has 
been  given  to  these  three  racial  stocks.  Each,  however,  forms 
an  appreciable  part  of  the  total  population,  and  is  entitled  to 
discussion.  Each  presents  in  turn  peculiar  problems  to  the 
Nation;  although  but  one,  the  Japanese,  has  shown  a  tendency 
to  increase  for  a  considerable  period. 

INDIANS. 

The  North  American  Indian  seems  to  be  slowly  merging  into 
the  national  population,  or,  where  this  is  not  occiuxing,  to  be 
declining  in  numbers. 

The  decrease  during  the  last  decade  may,  however,  be  more 
apparent  than  real.  The  returns  for  Indians  are  subject  to  some 
degree  of  uncertainty  because  of  the  practice  of  treating  as  In- 
dians all  persons  having  any  trace  of  Indian  blood.  Such  persons 
in  some  cases  can  not  be  distinguished  by  their  appearance  from 
pure-blooded  whites,  and  as  a  result  some  of  them  have  doubt- 
less been  reported  as  white  at  one  census  and  as  Indian  at 
another,  since  the  enumerators  are  not  always  able  to  interview 
directly  the  persons  whom  they  enumerate  but  are  obliged  to 
secure  information  regarding  them  from  other  persons.  More- 
over, at  the  census  of  19 10  a  special  effort  was  made  to  secure  a 
complete  enumeration  of  all  persons  having  any  perceptible  amount 
of  Indian  blood,  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  a  special  report 
showing  tribal  relations,  purity  of  Indian  blood,  etc.  It  is  prob- 
able that  this  resulted  in  the  enumeration  of  a  considerable 
number  of  persons  as  Indians  who  would  ordinarily  have  been 
reported  as  whites.  For  these  reasons  the  changes  indicated  by 
the  returns  of  the  last  foiu*  censuses  may  not  altogether  corre- 
spond to  the  facts.* 

A  large  proportion  also  of  the  Indians  included  in  the  census 
total  are  persons  having  more  or  less  Negro  blood.     Especially 

^  Color  or  Race,  Nativity,  and  Parentage,  Vol.  II,  Fourteenth  Census  Reports,  p.  17. 

133 


134 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 


in  Oklahoma,  intermarriage  with  Negroes  has  been  frequent; 
and  in  consequence,  in  that  state  and  elsewhere,  the  number  of 
persons  of  mixed  racial  characteristics  has  undoubtedly  increased 
to  a  marked  degree,  while  the  number  of  Indians  of  pure  blood 
has  materially  decreased. 

Table  33. — Indian  Population,  by  Divisions  and  States: 
1920,   1910,  AND  1900. 


DIVISION   AND   STATE. 


United  States., 


244.437 


Geographic  divisions: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central. . . 

West  North  Central . . 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central. . . 

West  South  Central . . 

Mountain 

Pacific 

New  England: 

Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

^Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan I    5,614 

Wisconsin !     9, 6ir 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota '     8,761 


I.  71S 
S.940 
IS.  69s 
37. 263 
13.673 
1.623 
60.6IS 
76, 899 

31. o" 

839 

28 
24 

sss 

no 
IS9 

S.S03 
100 
337 

151 
125 
194 


265,683 


Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota. 
South  Dakota. 

Nebraska 

Kansas 


529 
171 
6.  2S4 
16.384 
2,888 
2,  276 


2,  076 
7.  717 
18,255 
41, 406 
9.034 
2,  612 
76,  767 
75.  338 
32.458 

8q2 


284 
152 

6,046 

168 
1.503 

127 

279 

188 

7.519 

10,  142 

9.  053 
471 
3^i 

6,486 
19.  137 

3.502 

2.444 


^37.196 


1,600 
6,959 
15.027 
42,339 
6,585 
2.  S90 

65.  574 

66,  155 
30,  367 

798 

22 

5 

587 
35 

153 

5.257 

63 

1,639 

42 

243 

16 

6,354 

8.372 

9,  182 

382 

130 

6,968 

20,  225 

3.322 

2,  130 


DIVISION   AND   STATH. 


South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Colimibia. . , 

Virginia 

West  Virginia , 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mountain: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Alexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 


32 
37 
824 
7 
II,  824 
304 

125 

S18 

57 

56 

405 

1,  105 

106 

1,066 

57.337 

2,  109 

10,  956 
3.098 
1.343 
1.383 
19.512 
32.989 

3,  711 
4.907 

9,061 
4.590 
17.360 


5 

55 

68 

539 

36 

7.851 

331 

95 

74 

234 

216 

909 

1.253 

460 

780 

74.  82  s 

702 

10,  745 
3.488 
1,486 
1,482 
20,  573 
39,  201 
3.133 
5.  240 

10,  997 
5.  090 
16,371 


5.  687 

131 

19 

3S8 

101 
108 
177 

3,  203 

66 

593 

64,44s 

470 

11.343 

4,  326 
1,686 
I.  437 

13.  144 

36,480 

3,623 

5,  3t6 

10,039 
4.95' 
15.377 


In  1920,  persons  of  Indian  blood  were  enumerated  in  every 
state  in  the  Union,  though  Delaware  reported  but  2  and  West 
Virginia  7,  The  changes  in  the  Indian  population  during  the  last 
two  decades  possess  some  statistical  interest,  but  they  should  be  ob- 


INDIANS,  CHINESE,  AND  JAPANESE.  135 

served  with  full  knowledge  of  the  changing  composition,  already 
referred  to,  of  the  population  classified  as  Indian.  It  is  probable, 
indeed,  that  the  244,437  Indians,  so  termed,  enumerated  in  1920 
contained  in  the  aggregate  decidedly  less  North  American  Indian 
blood  and  decidedly  more  white  and  Negro  blood  than  did  the 
237,196  Indians  enumerated  in  1900,  and  that  in  consequence 
in  the  aggregate  they  possessed  somewhat  less  marked  Indian 
characteristics  than  were  evident  20  years  earlier. 

Almost  half  of  the  states  show  increase  in  Indian  population 
from  1900  to  1920.  All  the  Atlantic  states  except  Massachusetts 
and  Delaware  showed  increase  in  the  number  of  Indians;  though 
such  increase  was  small  except  in  the  case  of  North  Carolina, 
where  the  largest  number  of  Indians  in  any  Eastern  state  (5,687 
in  1900)  considerably  more  than  doubled  in  20  years.  The  14 
states  having  an  Indian  population  in  1900  exceeding  5,000  were, 
in  descending  order:  Oklahoma,  Arizona,  South  Dakota,  Cali- 
fornia, New  Mexico,  Montana,  Washington,  Minnesota,  Wisconsin, 
North  Dakota,  Michigan,  North  Carolina,  New  York,  and  Nevada. 
This  number  became  13  in  1920,  in  which  year  6  of  these  states 
showed  increases,  in  some  cases  rather  marked,  in  Indian  popu- 
lation for  the  20-year  period,  while  South  Dakota  and  Oklahoma 
registered  pronounced  decreases.  More  than  half  of  all  Indians 
continue  to  be  located  in  four  states. 

The  inference  from  the  changes  here  noted  is  that  the  extinction 
of  the  North  American  Indian  at  no  distant  date,  which  so  long 
has  been  confidently  predicted,  has  been  averted  by  increasing 
intermarriage ;  and  that  while  possibly  Indian  tribal  relations  and 
customs  may  disappear,  a  considerable  strain  of  Indian  blood  will 
remain,  especially  in  the  13  states  having  an  appreciable  Indian 
population  in  1920,  where  the  reservation  system  continues  to 
make  segregation  possible. 

CHINESE. 

Chinese  immigration  took  place  between  i860  and  1890,  but 
since  then,  as  the  result  of  legislation  restricting  immigration  of 
this  race,  the  Chinese  population  in  the  United  States  has  decreased. 
Of  the  61,639  Chinese  in  this  country,  only  7,748  are  females,  and 
the  increase  of  Chinese  by  birth  is,  therefore,  small. 

Although  at  the  outset  most  of  the  Chinese  in  this  country  were 
located  on  the  Pacific  coast,  there  has  been  a  constant  tendency  to 
extend  their  places  of  residence  to  other  states ;  and  in  consequence 


136 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


the  proportion  of  this  race  in  California,  which  in  1880  was  71.2 
per  cent,  was  reduced  by  1920  to  46.7  per  cent.  There  are  a  few 
Chinese  in  every  state  in  the  Union,  the  smallest  number,  11,  being 
found  in  Vermont. 

It  should  be  added  that  the  Chinese  in  the  United  States  are 
distinctly  urban,  four-fifths  of  them  residing  in  cities  and  \il- 
lages  of  2,500  inhabitants  or  m.ore.  Considerable  numbers  live 
in  San  Francisco,  Oakland,  and  Los  Angeles,  while  New  York 
leads  all  other  eastern  cities  as  a  center  of  residence  for  the 
Chinese. 


Table  34. — Chinese  Population,  by  Divisions  and  States: 
1920,  1910,  AND  1900. 


DIVISION  AND  STATE. 


United  States. 


Geographic  divisions: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central. . . 

West  North  Central . . 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central. . . 

West  South  Central . . 

Mountain 

Pacific 

New  England: 

Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 


61, 639 


3.60a 

8,812 
S.043 
1,678 
1,824 
54a 
I.  534 
4.339 
34.  265 

161 
9S 
II 
».544 
22s 
566 

S.  793 
I,  190 
1.829 

941 
»83 
2,776 
792 
2SI 

508 
835 

412 
124 
14a 

189 

68 


3.499 
8,  189 
3.4IS 
1.19s 
1.583 
414 
1.303 
5.614 
46.  320 

108 
67 
8 
2,s8a 
37a 
462 

5.  266 
I.  139 

1,  784 

569 
276 

2,  103 
241 
226 

275 
97 

S3S 
39 

121 

iia 
16 


89,863 


4.203 
ic,  490 
2,533 
1.13s 
I.  791 
427 
1.555 
7.950 
59.  779 

119 
112 
39 
2,968 
366 
599 

7.170 
1.393 
1.927 

371 
207 
1.503 
240 
213 

166 
104 
449 

32 
16s 
180 

39 


DrvisioN  and  state. 


South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia. . . 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia. 

Florida 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mountain: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

P.\cific: 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 


43 
371 
461 
278 
98 
88 
93 
211 
181 

63 

57 

59 

364 

"3 
387 
361 
773 

873 
S8S 
253 
291 
171 
I.  137 
34a 
6S9 

2.363 
3.090 
28,813 


30 
378 
369 
154 
90 
80 
57 
333 
191 

52 
43 
62 
257 

62 
507 
139 
595 

1.28s 
859 
346 
373 
348 

1.30S 
371 
937 

3.  709 

7.363 
36, 348 


5t 
544 
455 
243 
S6 
51 
67 
204 
130 

57 
75 
58 
237 

6a 
599 

58 
836 

1.739 

1.467 
461 
599 
341 

«.4>9 
573 

>.3S3 

3.639 
10,397 
45.  753 


INDIANS,  CHINESE,  AND  JAPANESE. 


137 


JAPANESE. 

Immigration  from  Japan  is  restricted,  but  the  influx  of  persons 

of  this  nationality  has  not  suffered  an  absolute  check ;  so  that,  as 

the  number  in  the  country  is  small,  the  percentage  of  growth  has 

been  high. 

Table  35. — Japanese  Population,  by  Divisions  and  States: 
1920,  1910,  and  1900. 


DIVISION  AND  STATE. 


United  States. 


Geographic  divisions: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central . .  . 

West  North  Central. . 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central . . . 

West  South  Central .  . 

Mountain 

Pacific 

New  England: 

Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Peimsylvania 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

West  North  Centilal: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 


347 

3,  266 

927 

I,  21S 

360 

35 

578 

10.  792 

93.  490 


191 
35 
102 

2,686 

2SS 


8S 


38 
804 

52 


272 

1.643 

482 

1,000 

156 

26 
428 

10,447 

57.  703 


151 
33 


I.  247 

2C6 

190 

76 

38 
285 


590 
107 


24. 326 


446 
126 
223 


5.107 
18, 269 


354 
52 


148 


division  and  state  . 


South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia . 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

Ix)uisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mountain: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 


8 
29 
103 
56 


67 
449 

.074 

.569 

.  194 

.464 

251 

550 

.936- 

754 

.387 
.  151 
.952 


31 
48 
340 

1.585 
1.363 
1.596 
2,300 
258 


864 

12,  929 

3.418 

41.  356 


2,  44t 
I.  291 
393 
48 
8 
281 
417 


5.617 
2,  501 

10,  151 


The  Japanese  in  the  United  States  in  1880  numbered  only  14S, 
but  in  1920  had  increased  to  more  than  100,000.  The  increase 
from  1 910  to  1920  w^as  54  per  cent,  which  was  the  lowest  rate 
for  any  decade  during  which  the  Japanese  have  been  coming  to 
the  United   States,    the   lowest   rate    for    any    previous   decade 


138  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 

( 1 900-1910)  having  been  about  200  per  cent.  It  should  be  ob- 
served, however,  that  if  Japanese  women  alone  were  considered, 
the  increase  during  the  10  years  from  1910  to  1920  would  be  over 
300  per  cent.  In  1910,  57.3  per  cent  of  the  Japanese  in  the 
United  States  resided  in  California,  but  in  1 920  this  proportion  had 
increased  to  64.8  per  cent. 

From  the  brief  reference  here  presented  to  the  returns  for 
the  Indians,  Chinese,  and  Japanese,  it  appears  that  tlie  only- 
definite  change  of  consequence  relates  to  the  problem  which  for 
some  time  has  been  giving  concern  to  the  white  inhabitants  of 
California.  The  returns  clearly  indicate  the  manner  in  which  the 
Japanese  have  concentrated  in  tliat  state,  and  while  their  numbers 
are  so  small  that  if  scattered  about  the  United  States  their  pres- 
ence would  scarcely  be  noticed,  their  concentration  in  one  state 
has  tended  to  make  the  local  problem  an  embarrassing  one. 


XIII. 

INFLUENCE  UPON  POPULATION  INCREASE  OF 

CHANGES  IN  AGE,  MARITAL  CONDITION, 

AND  BIRTH  AND  DEATH  RATES. 

Age  has  been  an  important  inquiry  at  every  decennial  census 
of  the  United  States,  and  statistics  as  to  marital  condition  have 
been  published  for  the  last  four  censuses.  The  birth  rate,  like 
the  mortality  rate,  is  computed  by  the  Census  Bureau  from  data 
secured  for  registration  areas,  and  thus  is  not  covered  by  the 
decennial  enumeration. 

These  three  inquiries  are  significant  principally  as  together 
revealing  causes  of  changes  in  the  rate  of  population  increase,  and, 
therefore,  can  not  be  overlooked.  Age  is  in  itself  not  a  cause 
(except  as  it  becomes  a  factor  in  the  decline  of  some  com.m.unity 
at  length  losing  its  vitality),  but  rather  is  a  result  of  conditions 
produced  by  other  factors.  Nevertheless,  age  is  interwoven 
with  both  marital  condition  and  birth  rate,  and  consequently 
must  be  at  least  briefly  considered. 

AGE. 

The  per  cent  distribution  of  the  total  population  by  age  groups 
in  1 910  and  1920  was  as  follov/s: 


AGE  GROUP. 

1920 

1910 

Total 

100.  0 

100.  0 

Under  5  years 

10.  9 

20.8 

47-  3 
20.8 

II. 6 

■;  to  14  years 

20.  5 
48.9 
13.9 

1 1;  to  44  years 

45  years  and  over 

* 

Why  did  this  decided  drop  during  the  decade  occur  in  the  pro- 
portion of  those  under  5  years  of  age,  and  why  the  noteworthy 
redistribution  of  those  1 5  years  of  age  and  over,  in  which  a  decrease 
in  the  proportion  from  15  to  44  years  is  more  than  offset  by  an 
increase  in  the  proportion  for  those  in  the  oldest  group? 

It  is  clear  that  the  same  forces  which  influence  the  increase  or 
decrease  of  the  population  are  able  also  to  influence  the  character- 

139 


140 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


istics  of  the  population.  These  forces  must  be  immigration, 
emigration,  birth,  and  mortality.  Approximately  80  per  cent  of 
all  immigrants  fall  within  the  age  group  15  to  45.  A  large  pro- 
portion of  the  emigrants  returning  to  Europe  during  the  decade 
1 910  to  1920  must  also  have  fallen  within  this  group,  especially 
those  who  returned  to  their  native  lands  for  military  serx-ice.  The 
checking  of  immigration  and  the  stimulation  of  emigration,  one 
by  withholding  additions  to  the  15-44  group  and  the  other  by 
actually  effecting  withdrawals,  brought  about  a  proportional 
reduction  of  the  group. 

Distribution  of  Population  by  Age  Periods:  1890-1920. 


TOTAL  POPULATION 


NATIVE  WHITE, 
NATIVE  PARENTS 


NATIVE  WHITE, 
FOREIGN   OR    MIXED 
PARENTAGE 


FOREIGN-BORN 
WHITE 


NEGRO 


1620 
1910 
1600 
1890 

1920 
1910 
1900 
1890 

1920 
1910 
1800 
1890 

1920 
1910 
1900 
1890 

1820 

1910 
1900 
1890 


UNDER  OVER 

15  YEARS      PER  CENT  15  YEARS 

40  20  0  20  40  60 


?a!»««55:<<<^««j«<»»Nvyv^yxy 


8585S!>K5X-M.:.:^^S*555^VXyyy'Xy 


J85Bfi5S:>^x♦:«*:^^^»^^^^'x••>■x>'. 


S656«S->K;555!X:?;ji^^fJJ^'^XXX^Xy' 


J55585!S<i5S:;555*:iM^»555^^XX^>^X 


J555«Sj;5>K«Wft%^SS5«««5^yxyxy/' 


e55«s>s<«?>;««!55»5^>^5'vxyyyy 


aSfifi«K55555«SS5»iS&«KX/f/XX/r 


t%kA^^ 


222 


8g8a8gJ5*!:8K««3*55«5»55^'X/XyV^/ 


^BfisaaKissssss^sssi'^ii^^^j^yyx/yy-,: 


mTZA 


80 


100 


^^UNDER  5 
^SSas  TO  14 


^^15  TO   24 

BZ2Z325  TO  44 


46  TO  64 

C5  AND  OVER 


But  the  15-44  group  included  also  the  Nation's  childbcaring 
element.  Since  the  check  to  its  growth  did  not  come  until  the 
latter  half  of  the  decade,  the  proportion  of  children  over  5  at  the 
taking  of  the  1920  census  was  not  thereby  reduced.  The  shift  in 
proportion  occurred  during  the  last  few  years  of  the  decennial  pe- 
riod, and  expended  its  effect  on  the  number  of  children  under  5 
years  of  age  found  by  the  census  enumerators.  The  proportion 
of  children  in  this  particular  age  group  dropped  from  11.6  to  10.9 
per  cent,  a  very  considerable  decrease.     There  were  at  least  two 


AGE,  MARITAL  CONDITION,  BIRTHS,  AND  DEATHS. 


141 


probable  factors  besides  immigration  and  emigration  which 
influenced  this  low  figure — the  withdrawal  of  many  men  from  their 
homes  to  enter  military  or  naval  service,  and  the  migration  of 
great  numbers  of  men  to  temporary  city  residence  because  of  the 
great  industrial  activity  of  this  exceptional  period. 

The  proportional  increase  in  the  group  of  persons  45  years  of  age 
and  over  was  due  in  part  to  the  proportional  reduction  in  the 
15-44  group  resulting  from  the  checking  of  immigration  and  the 
stimulation  of  emigration,  and  in  part  to  the  influenza  epidemic, 
which  took  its  toll  mainly  among  persons  under  45  years  of  age. 

Table  36.— Proportions  of  Children  Under  15  Years  of  Age 
AND  of  Persons  45  Years  of  Age  and  Over  in  the  Total 
Population:  1920,  19 10,  and  1900. 

[For  state  figures  see  Table  6i.] 


GEOGRAPHIC   DIVISION. 

PER  CENT  UNDER  IS  YE.\RS  OP  AGE. 

PER    CENT   45    VEARS   OF    AGE 
.\ND   OVER 

1920 

1910 

1900 

1920 

1910 

1900 

United  States 

31.8 

32.1 

34-4 

20.8 

18.9 

17.7 

New  England 

28.5 
29.8 
29.4 

31- I 
36.5 
37-1 
36.5 
33-2 
25.  2 

27.  2 
29.  0 
29-5 
31-9 
37-5 
38.1 
38.8 
31- 1 
24-3 

27.4 
30.  6 

32.5 
35-4 
39- 0 
39-7 
41-3 
33- "^ 
27.9 

24.  6 

21.7 
22.5 

21.  7 

17.  6 

17.9 
16.3 
18.8 
25.1 

23.0 
19.8 
21.  2 

19-3 
16.  2 

15- 9 
14.4 
17.0 
21.5 

22.5 

19-3 
19.  I 
17.  I 

15-7 
15- 0 
13-5 
15-7 
20.5 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central 

West  NortJi  Central 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central 

West  South  Central 

Mountain      

Pacific 

A  comparison  of  urban  and  rural  age  distribution  affords  further 
insight  into  the  developments  of  the  decade.  The  following 
tabulation  records  the  urban  and  rural  age  distributions  for  1920: 


AGE-  GROUP. 

Urban.                   Rural. 

Total 

100.  0                        100.  0 

Under  5  years  

9-7         j             12-3 
17.9                     24.0 

50-  9                      43-  5 
21.  x                      20.  2 

1;  to  14.  vears  

I  j;  to  4-d  vears 

45  years  and  over 

'         1 

Of  the  riu-al  population,  45.9  per  cent  were  under  20  years  of  age, 
while  for  the  urban  population  the  corresponding  percentage,  35.8, 
was  less  than  four-fifths  as  large.  Since  the  average  longe\-ity  of 
the  rural  population  is  greater  than  that  of  urban  dwellers,  migra- 


142  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


tion  from  country  to  city  must  be  the  explanation  of  these  varying 
proportions.  Migration  apparently  does  not  take  place  until 
about  the  age  of  20,  at  which  age  the  niral  proportions  show  a 
decided  drop  and  the  urban  proportions  a  corresponding  gain. 
Consistently,  the  census  reveals  a  greater  dechne  between  19 10  and 
1920  in  the  proportion  of  rural  children  than  in  the  proportion  of 
urban  children. 

Analysis,  however  brief,  of  age  distribution  leads  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  population  of  the  United  States,  as  a  whole,  was 
slightly  older  in  1920  than  it  was  at  the  census  of  1910,  and  that 
the  rural  districts,  strongholds  heretofore  of  population  increase, 
have  declined  slightly  in  their  proportion  of  children,  because  of  the 
response  from,  rural  areas  to  the  lure  of  opportunity  in  the  large 
cities.  It  is  one  more  result,  added  to  the  many  already  noted, 
of  war  influences  in  a  nation  not  yet  returned  to  normal  when  the 
census  of  1920  w^as  taken. 

MARITAL   CONDITION. 

Information  secured  through  Federal  census  returns  concerning 
the  number  of  persons  of  each  sex  single,  married,  or  widowed  was 
first  tabulated  and  published  at  the  census  of  1890.  Comparative 
figiu-es  are  therefore  available  for  only  30  years.  Changes  during 
this  period  in  the  proportion  married  among  all  adult  males  and 
females  are,  of  course,  of  great  interest  and  also  of  vital  importance 
to  the  welfare  of  the  Nation ;  nevertheless  the  most  extreme  com- 
parison possible  from  census  records  necessarily  covers  economic 
and  social  conditions  within  the  recollection  of  a  large  part  of  the 
adult  population  in  1920.  Such  a  comparison  affords  no  striking 
picture  of  the  marriage  proportions  existing  in  one  distinct  eco- 
nomic period  as  contrasted  with  another.  The  entrance,  for  exam- 
ple, of  women  into  practically  all  gainful  callings — previously  filled 
almost  exclusively  by  men — is  a  recent  development  of  great 
importance.  This  far-reaching  economic  change  doubtless  is  now 
affecting  family  life,  and  its  influence  may  be  expected  to  increase 
rather  than  diminish.  It  is  still  too  early  to  measure  the  effect, 
if  any,  that  the  readjustment  of  ideals  on  the  part  of  a  great  number 
of  women  may  have  upon  the  marriage  rate  itself  and  thus  of 
course  upon  population. 

A  century  or  more  ago  practically  no  women  were  employed  in 
gainful  callings  outside  of  domestic  service.  Marriage  and  mater- 
nity commonly  were  accepted  as  the  woman 's  natural  sphere  of 


AGE,  MARITAL  CONDITION,  BIRTHS,  AND  DEATHS. 


143 


responsibility  and  activity  in  life.  Clearly  the  possession,  were 
they  obtainable,  of  reasonably  reliable  statistics  showing,  for 
some  early  period,  the  proportions  married  and  widowed  among 
adult  women  would  prove  of  great  value  because  it  would  permit 
comparison  of  our  own  exceptional  period  with  one  reflecting 
those  social  conditions  which  prevailed  prior  to  the  so-called 
industrial  revolution.  Is  such  a  comparison  impossible  ?  Are  the 
exact  proportions,  during  the  colonial  period  of  American  history, 
of  women  single,  married,  and  widowed  among  adult  females  of 
that  period  past  finding  out  in  our  time?  Fortunately  there 
exists  one  colonial  enumeration  which  throws  some  light  upon 
this  subject. 

The  royal  governors  of  the  British  North  American  colonies, 
from  1635  to  1775,  made  in  all  30  counts,  or  more  ambitious 
enumerations,  of  population.^  A  variety  of  statistical  informa- 
tion, in  addition  to  the  mere  count  of  inhabitants,  was  recorded 
at  many  of  these  enumerations.  In  but  three,  however,  do  any 
facts  relating  to  marriage  appear :  In  the  colonial  censuses  of  New 
Hampshire,  taken  in  1767  and  1773,  and  in  the  Connecticut  census 
of  1774.  The  Connecticut  census  gives  the  number  of  each  sex 
married  "under  20, ' '  "from  20  to  70, ' '  and  " over  70, ' '  but  ignores 
widows.  Fortunately  the  New  Hampshire  colonial  enumerations 
furnish  practically  all  the  information  desired  to  set  up  what 
appears  to  be  a  reasonably  accurate  marriage  rate  for  females  as 
it  existed  a  century  and  a  half  ago.  To  secure  this  rate  it  is  only 
necessary  to  make  one  fully  warranted  adjustment.  At  the 
enumeration  of  1773  ^  the  following  facts  concerning  white  persons 
were  secured : 


MALES. 

Total 36,739 

Under  16 18,  334 

Over  60 I,  538 

Unmarried,  16-60 6,  263 

Married,  16-60 10,  604 


FEMALES. 

Total 35,684 


Unmarried 22,  228 

Married 11,  887 

Widowed i,  569 


Thus,  curiously,  the  only  information  concerning  women  secured 
at  both  New  Hampshire  enumerations  related  to  marital  condi- 
dition,  but  the  inclusion  of  all  female  children  with  single  adult 
females  leaves  both  census  returns  without  a  record  of  the  number 
of  unmarried  women.     On  the  other  hand,  the  marital  statistics 

'  A  Century  of  Population  Growth,  pp.  4-7,  149-185. 

^  The  Colonial  census  of  1767  records  the  same  information  but  for  only  91  towns. 
The  census  of  1773,  for  141  towns,  is  therefore  utilized. 


144 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


for  males  supply  the  number  married  between  i6  and  60  but 
omit  the  number  married  over  60  and  also  the  number  of  widowers. 
The  omissions  for  males  can  not  be  supplied,  but  it  is  possible  to 
determine  approximately  the  number  of  unmarried  women,  and 
hence  to  complete  the  proportions  single,  married,  and  "widowed 
among  all  adult  females. 

What  was  the  number  of  girls  imder  16,  and  hence,  by  subtrac- 
tion, the  number  of  unmarried  women?  The  number  of  boys 
under  16  was  18,334.  The  number  of  girls  must  have  been  about 
the  same.  Normally  boys  slightly  outnumber  girls.  In  1920 
the  distribution  of  males  and  females  among  the  native  white 
of  native  parents  was  as  follows: 


All  ages. 

IS  and  under. 

Males               

29,  636.  781 

28, 785, 176 

103.0 

II,  105,994 
10,815,226 

Females 

Males  to  100  females 

102.  7 

The  tabulation  for  the  population  of  New  Hampshire  as  enu- 
merated in  1773  showed  an  identical  ratio  of  males  and  females  for 
the  total  population,  namely,  103  to  100.  Since  the  sex  ratios 
for  the  total  population  are  the  same,  it  is  reasonable  to  presume 
that  the  sex  ratios  for  persons  under  16  will  at  least  be  similar. 
It  is,  therefore,  possible  to  apply  the  kno^vn  ratio  of  102.7  to  100 
to  the  known  number  of  males  under  16  in  New  Hampshire, 
18,334,  and  thus  to  estimate  the  number  of  females  under  16. 
Such  a  calculation  gives  17,852  as  the  estimated  number  of  females 
under  16,  and  the  subtraction  of  this  number  from  the  total  leaves 
17,832  women  16  years  of  age  and  over.  Assmning  that  all  those 
married  and  widowed  were  over  16  years  of  age,  the  number  of 
unmarried  women  over  16  must  have  been  4,376.  It  is  now  pos- 
sible to  estimate  the  proportions  single,  married,  and  widowed  in 
comparison  with  the  corresponding  proportions  for  1 920 : 


MARITAL  CONDITION  OP  WOMEN 

1773. 
per  cent  (New 
Hampshire). 

1920.  PER  CENT 

(united  states). 

16  YEARS  OF  AGE  AND  OVER. 

Native  white. 

Total 
population. 

Single    

24- s 

66.7 
8.8 

28.8 

60.  4 

'10.7 

25.  4 

Married 

62.  2 

Widowed  

'  12.  2 

'  Includes  divorced. 


AGE,  MARITAL  CONDITION,  BIRTHS,  AND  DEATHS.         145 

This  comparison  is,  of  course,  qualified  as  to  its  reliability  by 
the  fact  that  the  scope  of  the  earlier  inquiry  was  decidedly  limited. 

Examination  of  the  proportions  presented  above  demonstrates 
a  decided  variation  between  the  marital-condition  proportions  for 
women  in  1773  and  in  1920.  The  proportion  of  women  married 
decreased  during  the  period,  with  corresponding  increases  in  the 
single  and  widowed  groups.  The  decided  differences  appearing 
between  the  proportions  for  native  white  and  those  for  the  total 
population  in  1920  are  due  to  the  very  high  percentage  single  among 
native  white  women  of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage  and  the  very 
low  percentage  single  among  foreign-bom  women.  A  direct  com- 
parison between  the  New  Hampshire  census  and  the  1920  figures 
is  perhaps  best  obtained,  however,  by  using  the  native  white 
group  for  1920,  since  the  total  population  includes  the  negro  and 
the  foreign-bom  elements,  both  of  which  groups  introduce  new 
factors  into  the  problem.  Making  the  comparison  in  this  manner, 
if  the  proportion  had  been  the  same  for  the  United  States  in  1920 
as  for  New  Hampshire  in  1773,  the  number  of  unmarried  native 
white  women  in  the  country  would  have  been  a  million  less  than 
that  shown  by  the  census  returns.  This  increase  in  the  proportion 
single  is  presumably  due  to  the  increased  opportunities  for  self- 
support,  as  suggested  before,  and  to  the  change  in  the  social 
status  of  the  unmarried  woman. 

The  proportion  widowed  likewise  appears  much  higher  for  1920 
than  for  1773.  Although  the  inclusion  of  the  divorced  with  the 
widowed  for  1920  has  some  effect  upon  the  result,  it  can  not 
be  used  as  a  complete  explanation  of  the  difference,  since  the 
total  number  of  divorced  women  in  the  country  in  1920  repre- 
sented but  eight- tenths  of  i  per  cent  of  all  women  16  years  of 
age  or  over.  The  increase  in  the  proportion  of  women  widowed, 
in  the  face  of  a  decrease  in  the  proportion  married,  indicates  a 
decided  change  from  the  condition  existing  before  the  Revolution. 
Although  it  is  possible  that  the  relative  ages  of  husband  and  wife 
were  more  nearly  equal  or  that  the  expectation  of  life  for  males  and 
females  differed  less  in  the  earlier  days,  the  probable  explanation 
is  that  the  marital  relationship  was  held  to  be  more  desirable  in 
that  period,  and  conditions  were  such  as  to  make  it  more  difficult 
for  widowed  women  to  maintain  an  independent  existence. 

The  rather  marked    changes    in  the  marital    condition  which 
have  taken  place  during  recent  decades  are  worthy  of  analysis. 
107°— 22 10 


146 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Table  37. — Summary  of  the  Marital  Condition  of  the  Population 
OF  THE  United  States:  1920  and  1910. 


SEX   AND   CENSUS 
YEAR. 


Both  sexes: 

1920. . . . 

1910. . . . 
Male: 

1920 

1910 

Female: 

1920 

1910 


Total 
population 

15  years 
of  ac  and 

over. 


72,098, 178 
62,473,130 


36,920,663 

32,425,80s 


3S>I77,SIS 
30,047,325 


Number. 


22,584,467 
21,483.299 


12,967,  565 
12, 550. 129 


9,616,902 
8,933>170 


Per 
cent 

of 
total. 


31-3 
34-  4 


35-  I 
38.7 


27-3 
29.  7 


Per 

cent 

of 
total. 


Number. 


43.168,159      59-9      5i  67s.  933        7-9      So8.  S88 

35.777.2S7      57.3      4,647,618        7.4      341,230 


DIVORCED. 


Per 

^^f  Number. 

total. 


21,849,266 

59-2 

1,758,308 

18.092,600 

55-8 

1,471,390 

21,318,933 

60.6 

3,917,62s 

17,684,687 

58.9 

3, 176,228 

Per 

cent 

of 
totaL 


235-284 
156, 162 


273.304 
185,068 


o.  7 
o-S 

0.6 

c-5 

0.8 
0.6 


The  proportion  married  in  the  total  population  15  years  of  age 
and  over  increased,  and  a  corresponding  reduction  appeared  in 
the  proportion  remaining  single.  The  proportion  of  married  males 
increased  sharply,  while  the  proportion  of  married  females  also 
increased,  but  at  a  slower  rate.  The  number  of  married  men  ex- 
ceeds that  of  married  women.  This  excess  of  a  little  over  half 
a  million  represents,  in  general,  those  immigrants  whose  wives  are 
in  foreign  countries.  The  ratio  of  males  to  females  among  the 
foreign  bom  in  the  country,  as  recorded  by  the  1920  census,  was 
approximately  122  to  100. 

The  increase  in  the  proportion  married  is  by  no  means  peculiar 
to  the  last  census.  The  proportions  from  1890  have  been  as 
follows : 

Per  Cent  Married  in  Population  15  Years  of 
Age  and  Over:  i 890-1 920. 


CENSUS  YEAR. 


1920 
I9IO 
1900 
1890 


Both  sexes. 


59-9 
57-3 
55-7 
55- 3 


Male. 


59-2 
55-8 
54-5 
53-9 


Female. 


60.6 
58-9 
57- o 
56.8 


The  tendency  toward  increase  in  the  proportion  married  may  be, 
to  some  degree,  a  logical  development  of  the  changing  age  dis- 
tribution noted  in  the  previous  section.  The  proportion  of  the 
population  21  years  of  age  and  over  is  increasing,  not  only  with 


AGE,  MARITAL  CONDITION,  BIRTHS,  AND  DEATHS.  147 

reference  to  the  total  population  of  all  ages  but  also  with  reference 
to  the  total  population  15  years  of  age  and  over,  and  therefore, 
since  most  marriages  do  not  take  place  until  the  husband  at  least 
is  at  or  above  the  age  of  2 1 ,  the  proportion  of  married  persons  in  the 
total  population  1 5  years  of  age  and  over  Vvould  naturally  show 
some  increase.  Thus  the  tendency  noted  throughout  this  30-year 
period  may  result  in  some  measure  from  changed  age  distribution. 

This,  however,  is  not  sufficient  to  explain  the  entire  increase  in 
the  proportion  of  married  persons  which  occurred  during  the 
decade  1910  to  1920.  Certain  conditions  were  present  in  the 
country  which  doubtless  stimulated  the  marriage  rate.  It  was  a 
decade  of  business  prosperity.  Wages  were  high,  unemployment 
was  rare,  the  demand  for  labor  was  steady,  and  general  business 
activity  prevailed.  Such  conditions  in  some  degree  tended  to  lift 
certain  economic  restraints  on  marriage.  The  result  was,  natu- 
rally enough,  an  increase  in  the  marriage  rate;  but  perhaps  the 
most  important  contributing  cause  was  the  influence  of  the  war. 
There  is  a  strong  presumption  that  the  war  increased  the  number 
of  married  persons  -wathin  the  country.  Doubtless  some  marriages 
v/ere  contracted  in  order  to  procure  exemption  from  military  serv- 
ice, but  marriages  induced  by  the  war  were  in  general  those  has- 
tened by  the  entry  of  the  male  into  military  or  naval  service. 
Such  tendencies  probably  account  to  some  extent  for  the  changed 
proportions  recorded  by  the  1920  census. 

The  number  of  persons  remaining  single  showed  in  1920  an 
excess  of  males  over  females  amounting  to  3,350,663.  Such  a 
figure,  while  less  than  that  for  1910  (3,616,959),  continues  to  be  of 
interest.  The  reduction  here  noted  was  somewhat  influenced  by 
the  marked  reduction  (635,332,  or  26.7  per  cent)  in  the  excess  of 
males  over  females  1 5  years  of  age  and  over  which  characterized 
the  close  of  the  decade  1 910-1920.  After  all,  however,  the  dis- 
crepancy between  unmarried  males  and  unmarried  females,  far 
beyond  the  actual  difference  between  the  numbers  of  the  two  sexes, 
is  to  be  found  principally  in  the  different  ages  at  which  men  and 
women  marry,  the  excess  of  unmarried  males  over  unmarried 
females  being  offset  in  considerable  measure  by  the  excess  of 
widows  over  widowers. 

The  census  of  1920  revealed  a  marked  increase  in  the  proportion 
of  maiTied  persons  am.ong  the  younger  element  of  the  population. 
The  proportion  of  persons  married  for  the  ages  over  45  actually 
showed  decreases,  but  the  reverse  was  true  of  the  younger  age 


148 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


groups.  For  each  year  of  age  from  15  to  34,  for  both  sexes,  an 
increase  appeared  in  1920  in  the  proportion  married  as  compared 
with  1 910,  the  change  being  especially  noticeable  for  the  younger 
ages.  For  the  ages  35  to  44,  inclusive,  considered  as  a  group, 
there  was  also  an  increase  during  the  decade,  but  less  pronounced, 
especially  in  the  case  of  women.  Such  a  change  should  exert  a 
marked  influence  on  both  the  family  life  and  the  future  increase  of 
population  in  the  Nation. 

Table  38. — Per  Cent  Married  in  Total  Number  of  Males  and 
Females  at  Specified  Ages:  1920  and  19 10. 


Total  1 5  years  and  over 

15  years 

16  years 

17  years 

18  years 

19  years 

20  years 

2 1  5'ears 

22  years 

23  years 

24  years 

25  years 

26  years 

27  years 

28  years 

29  years 

30  years 

3 1  years 

32  years 

33  years 

34  years 

35  to  44  years 

45  to  54  years 

55  to  64  years 

65  years  and  over 


59-2 


0.3 


55.8 


0.8 

0.4 

2.7 

6.5 

1.4 
3.8 

12-5 

8.6 

21.0 

16.2 

28.4 

23.8 

35-8 

32.3 

42.3 

39-2 

48.8 

45-5 

54-2 
59-7 
63-3 
68.3 

Si.o 
56.6 
60.0 
66.3 

68.4 

65.6 

72.9 

71.9 

72.9 

71-3 

75-7 
76.9 

75-1 
75-9 

79.8 
81.0 

79.2 
81.5 

77-9 
64.7 

79.0 
65.6 

60.6 


1.4 

4-2 

9.8 

19.2 

28.6 

38-4 

45-8 
52-9 
59-2 
64.2 

67.8 
71.4 
74-4 
75-9 
78.4 

76.6 
81. 1 
80.2 
82.2 

81.7 

80.3 
74.0 
61.2 
33-9 


58-9 


I, 

3' 
8. 

17' 

25' 

36. 
43  ■ 
50  ■ 
57' 
62. 


65-7 
69.9 
72.9 

74-4 
77.6 

74.7 
80.7 

79-4 
81.5 
80.9 

80.1 
74.8 
62.3 
35-0 


It  is  not  until  the  age  of  35  is  passed  that  the  proportion  of  males 
married  at  any  particular  age  equals  that  of  females;  and  such 
ages  as  20  years,  for  example,  are  striking  in  that  the  proportion 
married  is  very  much  greater  for  females  than  for  males.  The 
fact  that  females  marry  at  younger  ages  naturally  results  in  a 
greater  number  of  single  men  than  of  single  women. 


AGE,  MARITAL  CONDITION,  BIRTHS,  AND  DEATHS. 


149 


This  same  condition — early  marriage  of  females — also  accounts 
in  part  for  the  greater  number  of  widows  tlian  widowers.  Table  3  7 
reveals  the  disparity.  The  number  of  widowed  and  divorced 
women  was  more  than  twice  as  large  as  the  number  of  widowed 
and  divorced  men.  Other  causes  of  this  disparity  are  found  in 
the  tendency  of  the  wife  to  outlive  the  husband,  even  though  of 
the  same  age,  and  in  the  fact  that  men  remarry  to  a  greater  ex- 
tent than  women.  Of  all  men  over  65,  64.7  per  cent  are  married, 
as  against  only  33.9  per  cent  of  all  women.  The  following  tabu- 
lation shows,  for  1920,  the  percentages  married  and  the  percent- 
ages widowed  or  divorced  for  men  and  women  in  specified  age 
groups: 


35  to  44  years.  .  . 

45  to  54  years 

55  to  64  years 

65  years  and  over 


Total 

married, 

widowed, 

ordivorced. 


83-7 
87.8 
90.  I 
92.4 


Married. 


79.8 
81.0 

77-9 
64.7 


Widowed 

or 
divorced. 


3-9 
6.8 

12.2 
27.7 


Total 

married, 

widowed, 

ordivorced. 


88.6 
90-3 
91-5 
92.7 


Married. 


Widowed 

or 
divorced. 


80.3 
74.0 
61.2 
33-9 


8.3 
16.3 

30-3 
58.8 


Although  the  proportions  of  men  and  women  who  have  passed 
into  or  through  the  married  state  are  approximately  the  same  for 
the  age  groups  from  55  upward,  nevertheless,  of  those  over  65, 
nearly  two-thirds  of  the  men  are  still  married,  while  only  one-third 
of  the  women  have  husbands  living. 

The  distribution  of  the  widowed  has  several  interesting  features. 
The  states  showing,  for  1920,  the  highest  proportions  of  widowers 
are  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  and  Vermont,  while  the  smallest 
proportion  appears  for  the  state  of  Utah.  These  high  and  low  pro- 
portions are  partially  accounted  for  by  the  varying  age  distribution. 
Maine,  New  Hampshire,  and  Vermont  show  larger  proportions  of 
men  65  years  of  age  and  over — among  whom  the  number  of  widow- 
ers is,  of  course,  relatively  larger  than  among  men  below  that  age 
limit — than  are  found  in  any  other  state,  while  the  corresponding 
proportion  for  Utah  is  relatively  small,  although  there  are  a  few 
states  in  which  it  is  still  smaller.  The  distribution  of  widows 
establishes  the  fact  that  the  largest  proportions  are  found  in  the 
two  resort  states  in  the  country,  Florida  and  California,  while 
North  and  South  Dakota,  states  of  a  distinctly  different  type,  have 
the  smallest  proportions  of  widows.     The  proportion  of  women  in 


150  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  19I0-I920. 

the  higher  age  groups  is  large  in  California  but  not  in  Florida,  and 
is  small  in  North  Dakota  but  not  in  South  Dakota.  It  appears, 
therefore,  that  the  relationship  between  the  proportion  widowed 
and  the  age  distribution  is  much  less  noticeable  in  regard  to  women 
than  in  regard  to  men. 

The  figure  for  persons  divorced  can  not  be  used  as  an  indication 
of  the  total  number  divorced,  but  merely  shows  the  number  of 
divorced  persons  who  had  not  remarried  at  the  time  the  census  was 
taken. 

THE    BIRTH    AND   DEATH   RATES. 

The  birth  rate  in  the  United  States  appears  to  have  been  de- 
clining gradually  for  a  considerable  period,  although  reductions  in 
infant  mortalit}^  are  sufficient  to  offset  this  tendency  in  some 
degree.  That  it  is  not  being  completely  offset,  however,  is  indi- 
cated by  the  age  distribution  over  a  longer  period  than  the  past 
decade. 

In  1 790,  49  per  cent  of  the  white  population  of  the  country  were 
under  16  years  of  age.  In  1880  but  37.1  per  cent  were  under  15 
years  of  age,  and  the  1920  census  records  only  31.5  per  cent  so 
classified. 

The  numbers  of  white  persons  20  years  of  age  and  over — that  is, 

of  self-supporting  age — to  i  ,000  white  children  under  the  age  of  1 6 

in  continental  United  States  in  1790,  1850,  1900,  and  1920  were  as 

follows : 

1790 782 

1850 1,118 

1900 1 .  583 

1920 1 ,801 

Thus  among  the  whites  there  were  about  5  children  under  1 6  to 
9  adults  20  years  of  age  and  over  in  1920,  as  compared  with  5  chil- 
dren to  4  adults  in  1790.  Is  the  United  States  tending  toward  a 
condition  where  the  younger  group  will  be  so  small  that  it  will  serve 
only  as  a  replacement  ? 

Birth  statistics  were  not  systematically  collected  by  the  Federal 
Government  until  191 5;  and  although  mortality  statistics  are 
available  from  state  and  insurance  records  further  back  into  the 
past,  they  can  be  of  little  assistance  without  statistics  of  births. 
Hence  it  is  impossible  to  determine  for  any  length  of  time  the 
natural  rate  of  increase  by  a  direct  calculation.  If  any  method  be 
employed,  it  must  consist  in  determining  how  much  of  the  increase 
is  due  to  external  contributions,  and  then  subtracting  that  from 
the  actual  increase,  thus  obtaining  a  remainder  which  should 
represent  the  increment  resulting  from  natural  increase. 


AGE,  MARITAL  CONDITION,  BIRTHS,  AND  DEATHS. 


151 


The  Federal  immigration  statistics  were  begun  in  1820,  and  they 
are  available  from  that  time.  Emigration  figures,  however,  are 
available  only  since  1907  and  for  all  previous  years  must  be  esti- 
mated. Such  estimates  have  been  made,  based  on  the  fact  that 
the  difference  between  the  increase  in  foreign  born  and  the  number 
of  immigrants  during  any  census  period  must  represent  the  aggre- 
gate of  persons  dying  or  emigrating  during  the  period.  From  such 
data  as  were  available,  a  rough  approximation  v/as  made  of  the 
number  who  presumably  died.     The  remainder  were  emigrants.' 

On  the  basis  of  such  a  computation  the  net  immigration  from 
1 82 1  to  1920  has  been  estimated  as  follows: 


DECADE.' 

Estimated  net 
immigration. 

DECADE.' 

Estimated  net 
immigration. 

182I-183O 

137,000 

558,000 

1,599,000 

2.663.000 

187I-1880 

2,530,000 
4,273,000 
3,239,000 
5.558,000 
3,467,000 

183  I— 1840 

1881-189O 

184I— 1850 

189I  — 1900 

185I-1860 

I9OI— I9IO 

1861-1870 2 .  -J  ;6. 000 

I9II-I92O 

'  Adjusted  to  correspond  to  census  dates. 

The  subtraction  of  the  net  immigration  for  a  certain  period  from 
the  actual  increase  for  the  period,  however,  will  not  give  the  natural 
increase,  for  there  still  is  present  in  the  remainder  a  small  incre- 
ment, the  excess  of  births  over  deaths  in  the  families  of  the  immi- 
grants arriving  during  the  period. 

To  determine  this  increment  for  a  given  decade,  the  assumption 
was  made  that  the  rate  of  natural  increase  was  the  same  for  the 
immigrant  families  as  for  the  total  population.  No  separate 
birth  statistics  for  the  native  and  foreign  elements  in  the  popu- 
lation have  been  compiled  until  recently,  and  so  no  actual  check 
is  possible. 

Although  the  birth  rate  for  immigrant  families  is  high,  the  in- 
fant-mortality rate  is  also  high.  Moreover,  the  proportion  of 
married  persons  among  immigrants,  not  including  men  who  have 
left  their  wives  in  their  home  countries,  is  relatively  low.  It  is 
possible,  therefore,  that  the  rate  of  natural  increase  among  immi- 
grants, especially  during  the  first  few  years  after  arrival  in  this 
country,  may  correspond  rather  closely  to  that  for  the  total  popu- 
lation. At  any  rate,  this  assumption  appears  as  tenable  as  any 
other,  and  it  has  accordingly  been  made.  Considering  the  immi- 
gration to  have  been  uniformly  distributed  throughout  the  period, 

'  For  a  detailed  explanation,  see  Appendix  C. 


152 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


the  average  length  of  time  elapsing  between  the  arrival  of  the  im- 
migrant and  the  end  of  the  decade  would  be  five  years.  There- 
fore, the  natural  increase,  during  the  decade  of  arrival,  within  the 
group  represented  by  the  net  immigration  is  estimated  to  be  equal 
to  five  times  the  annual  increase  in  a  normal  population  group  of 
the  same  size. 

With  these  two  figures,  the  net  immigration  and  the  natural 
increase  within  the  net  immigration,  it  is  possible  to  obtain  the 
natural  increase  of  the  population  per  decade. 

Table  39. — Increase  in  Total  Population  of  the  United  States, 
BY  Decades,  i  790-1920,  with  Estimated  Increase  Which 
Would  Have  Occurred  During  Each  Decade  Had  there  been 
NO  Immigration  nor  Emigration  in  That  Decade,  1820- 1920. 

[The  rates  in  this  table  have  been  estimated  by  methods  identical  with  those  employed  in  estimating 
the  corresponding  rates  for  the  white  population,  described  in  Appendix  A.  For  description  of  method 
employed  in  estimating  emigration,  see  Appendix  C] 


1790-1800 
1800-1810 
1810-1820 
1820-1830 
1830-1840 

1840-1850 
1850-1860 
1860-1870 
1870-1880 

1880-1890 
1890-1900 
190O-1910 
191O-1920 


ACTUAL  INCREASE. 


Number. 


1.379.269 
I. 931. 398 
2,398.572 
3.227,567 
4.203,433 

6, 122,423 

8,251,445 

'8,375,128 

10.337,334 

12,791,931 
13,046,861 
15.977.691 
13.738.354 


35-1 
36.4 


33' 
33- 

32. 

35' 
35' 
26. 
26 


25-5 
20.7 
21.0 
14.9 


ESTIMATED  INCREASE  H.\D 

THERE  BEEN  NO  IMMIGRA- 
TION NOR  EMIGRATION  DUR- 
ING DECADE. 


3,065,000 
3,564,000 

4,319,000 
5,288,000 
5,817,000 
7,566,000 

8,175,000 

9 , 568 , 000 

10,031,000 
10, 117,000 


Per  cent. 


31-8 

27.7 

25-3 
22.8 
18.5 
19.0 

16.3 
15-2 
13.2 
10.9 


'  No  data  for  years  prior  to  1820. 


>  Estimated  corrected  figures;  census  of  1870  incomplete. 


These  rates  represent  the  difference  between  the  birth  and 
death  rates  in  the  country.  If  the  difference  were  zero,  the 
changes  in  population  from  one  census  to  another  would  be  due 
entirely  to  immigration  and  emigration.  Such  a  table,  demon- 
strating as  it  does  the  declining  rate  of  increase  in  the  United 
States,  is  one  which  should  be  most  carefully  considered.  It 
represents  a  continuous  tendency  and  one  which  has  shown 
no  signs  of  slackening.  The  United  States,  as  intimated  in  a 
preceding  chapter,'  has   reached  a  point  in   native   population 


'  See  p.  loi. 


AGE,  MARITAL  CONDITION,  BIRTHS,  AND  DEATHS. 


153 


growth,  by  a  process  of  continuous  shrinkage  in  per  cent  of  in- 
crease, which  in  1920  was  about  abreast  of  European  increase. 
Continuation  of  this  reduction  to  1930  would  indicate  an  ex- 
tremely serious  tendency.  The  next  census,  therefore,  is  likely 
definitely  to  align  the  United  States  either  with  old  settled  coun- 
tries having  normal  increase,  or  with  abnormal  France.  The 
results  of  the  Fifteenth  Census,  in  so  far  as  they  reveal  a  check  to 
decreased  rate  of  increase  or  the  projection  of  a  long-standing 
tendency  over  the  danger  line,  should  be  awaited  with  intense 
interest  by  all  who  are  concerned  with  the  national  welfare. 

It  is  possible  to  check  to  some  extent  the  figure  for  the  last 
decade  by  means  of  the  birth  and  death  rates  which  are  now  avail- 
able. These  figures  have  been  collected  from  continually  in- 
creasing birth-registration  and  death-registration  areas,  which  in 
1 91 9  contained  nearly  60  per  cent  and  more  than  80  per  cent, 
respectively,  of  the  total  population  of  the  country. 


1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 


Birthrate. 


25-1 
25.0 
24.7 
24.6 
22.3 


Death  rate. 


13-6 
14.0 

14-3 
18. 1 
12.9 


Excess. 


"•5 

II. o 

10.4 

6-5 
9.4 


Of  these  years,  191 5  and  191 6  are  generally  considered  to  be 
normal.  Since  1916  the  epidemic  of  influenza  and  the  war  con- 
ditions of  Uving  have  been  such  as  to  cause  possibly  misleading 
fluctuations.  Inspection  of  the  tabulation  presented  above  sug- 
gests that  the  result  reached  by  the  elimination  of  the  increase 
due  to  the  foreign  bom,  at  least  for  the  recent  decade,  is  approxi- 
mately correct,  since  it  corresponds  so  closely  with  the  result 
achieved  by  utilizing  birth  and  mortality  returns  for  the  years 
accepted  as  normal,  191 5  and  191 6. 

Some  data  as  to  the  average  number  of  children  per  mother  are 
now  available  from  the  birth-statistics  reports.  These  data  show 
the  following  averages  for  those  white  mothers  in  the  birth- 
registration  area  who  gave  birth  to  children  during  the  calendar 
year  1 9 1 9 : ^ 

Average  number  of  children  ever  bom : 

Per  native  white  mother 3.2 

Per  foreign  white  mother 4.0 

Average  number  of  surviving  children : 

Per  native  white  mother 2.8 

Per  foreign  white  mother 3.4 

*  See  Appendix  F. 


154  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  19I0-I920. 

The  birth-registration  area  in  191 9  inchided  only  five  Southern 
states,  Mar}dand,  Kentucky,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  South 
Carolina.  Thus  the  proportion  which  the  Southern  states  in  the 
registration  area  formed  of  the  total  area  was  considerably  less 
than  the  proportion  which  the  South  as  a  whole  forms  of  the 
entire  United  States.  The  average  number  of  children  per  native 
white  mother,  computed  for  the  registration  area,  is  therefore  pre- 
sumably somewhat  smaller  than  the  corresponding  average  for 
the  entire  United  States,  since  the  average  for  the  South  is  higher 
than  for  the  rest  of  the  country. 

SUMMARY. 

From  this  brief  survey  of  changes  in  age,  marital  condition,  and 
birth  and  death  rates,  summed  up,  what  influences  do  they  ap- 
pear to  have  exerted  upon  population  ? 

The  age  of  the  American  people,  as  a  whole,  is  probably  slightly 
greater  than  in  1910.  This  is  the  result  of  slackened  increase  of 
population — due  in  part  to  the  country-wide  migration  of  whites 
and  Negroes,  more  or  less  interrupting  the  family  relation — and 
of  the  departure  of  great  numbers  of  the  younger  foreign  bom. 
The  actual  expectation  of  life  of  the  population,  at  birth  or  at  any 
given  age,  may  also  be  slightly  higher  than  in  19 10. 

The  number  married  proportionately  increased  among  both 
sexes,  and  marriages  in  the  younger  age  groups  sharply  increased. 

The  birth  rate  declined,  but  the  apparent  natural  increase 
of  about  10  or  12  per  cent,  without  alien  assistance,  and  the 
averages  of  2.8  surviving  children  per  native  white  mother  and 
3.4  per  foreign  white  mother,  shown  for  the  birth-registration  area 
in  1 91 9,  indicate  that  if  these  rates  are  maintained  the  United 
States  has  no  cause  for  especial  concern. 


XIV. 

INFLUENCE  UPON  POPULATION  INCREASE  OF 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

MANUFACTURES,  AND  MINING. 

Historically,  agriculture  has  been  regarded  as  the  most  important 
factor  in  increasing  or  limiting  population  growth.  It  remained 
for  manufactures  to  demonstrate  at  a  later  period  an  even  greater 
influence  on  the  number  of  inhabitants  and  their  places  of  resi- 
dence. In  a  decade  conspicuous  for  manufacturing,  agricultural, 
and  mining  activity  and  prosperity,  what  effect  did  these  great 
forces  have  on  the  American  people,  as  shown  at  the  Fourteenth 
Census  ? 

In  the  United  States  population  is  always  alert  to  follow  manu- 
facturing or  mining  development.  The  American  people,  adven- 
turous and  unbound  by  tradition,  are  especially  ready  to  redis- 
tribute themselves  within  the  wide  domain  of  the  Republic 
according  to  the  expansion  or  contraction  of  industrial  activity 
and  the  corresponding  return  available  to  tliem  in  a  given  area. 
A  brief  analysis  is  here  presented  of  the  relationship  existing  in 
the  United  States  between  industrial  growth,  whether  agriculture, 
manufactures,  or  mining,  and  population  change  from  1910  to 
1920. 

The  census  makes  use  of  nine  subdivisions  in  its  classification 
of  occupations.  These  subdivisions  and  their  importance,  in  the 
sense  of  number  of  workers  in  each,  at  the  census  of  1920  are 
indicated  by  the  following  tabulation: 

Agriculture,  forestry,  and  animal  husbandry 10, 953 ,  158 

Extraction  of  minerals i ,  090, 223 

Manxifactures  and  mechanical  industries 12 ,818,  524 

Transportation 3 ,  063 ,  582 

Trade 4,242,979 

Public  service  (not  elsewhere  classified) 770, 460 

Professional  service 2 ,  143 ,  889 

Domestic  and  personal  service 3 ,  404 ,  892 

Clerical 3, 126,541 

Total 41,614,248 

The  first  three  groups,  agriculture,  mining,  and  manufactures, 
represent  the  basic  occupations,  and  upon  the  location  of  these 
industries  depends  the  location  of  the  other  six  groups.  If 
manufacturing    settles    in    a    particular    center,    transportation, 

155 


156 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


trade,  public,  professional  and  domestic  service,  and  clerical 
workers  distribute  themselves  accordingly.  In  a  large  sense  their 
work  is  really  accessory  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  three  groups 
named.  Consequently,  these  three  basic  activities  are  here  con- 
sidered as  typical  of  industrial  development  and  distribution 
throughout  the  country. 

The  distribution,  by  geographic  divisions,  of  the  total  number 
of  persons  engaged  and  the  value-product  for  agriculture  in 
comparison  with  manufactures  and  production  of  minerals,  is 
given  in  Table  40. 

Table  40. — Comparison  of  Agriculture  With  Manufactures  and 
Production  of  Minerals  on  Basis  of  Number  of  Persons  Engaged 
and  Value-Product,  by  GEOGRAPmc  Divisions:  19 19. 

[For  state  figures,  see  Table  62.] 


PERSONS  ENGAGED  IN — 

Value  of 
agricultural 
products.  2 

Value  added  by 

GEOGRAPHIC    DIVISION. 

Agriculture. 

Manufactures 
and  produc- 
tion of 
minerals.  ' 

manufacture  plus 

value  of  products 

of  mineral 

industries.  > 

United  States .  .  . 

10,636,826 

11,893,558 

$20,933,487,000 

$28,206, 165,000 

New  England 

221, 162 

633 . 664 

1,586,291 
1,664,919 
2, 114, 586 
1,782,628 
1,781,389 
414,009 
438.178 

1.543.095 

3,816, 142 

3,091,676 

708,772 

1,073, 132 

480, 570 

413.863 

222,382 

543.926 

463, 106,000 
1,497,641,000 
4.323.955.000 

S. 540. 245, 000 

2,509,661,000 
1,722,324,000 
2,702, 169,000 
914, 787,000 
1,259, 599,000 

3,249,884,000 
9,287,921 ,000 
7.596,274.000 
1,690,804,000 
2  ,  2  1 1 ,  62  5  ,  000 

846 ,211, 000 
1,220, 595,000 

634,264,000 
1,468, 587,000 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central 

West  North  Central 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central 

West  South  Central 

Mountain 

Pacific 

^  Including  production  of  oil  and  gas. 

^  Total  value  of  crops  plus  total  value  of  live-stock  products  and  domestic  animals  sold  or  slaughtered  on 
farms; includes  some  duplication  representing  value  of  crops  consumed  by  live  stock. 

There  are  two  units  by  which  the  activity  of  industries  may  be 
measured,  value  of  products  and  physical  volume  of  production. 
Value  of  products  is  here  used,  because  data  are  available  for  a 
much  earlier  period  than  if  volume  of  production  were  sought,  and 
the  value  rather  than  the  volume  of  the  product  is  that  which 
influences  population  increase. 

A  first  inspection  of  Table  40  creates  an  impression  of  similarity 
between  persons  engaged  and  value  produced  for  each  of  the 
two  groups  there  listed.  This  impression,  however,  is  not  entirely 
correct,  as  the  following  per  capita  analysis  indicates.  This  per 
capita  proportion  is  of  service  only  as  a  means  of  determining 
how  constant  the  ratio  is  in  the  different  divisions.  It  obviously 
can  not  be  used  as  a  basis  of  comparison  between  agriculture  and 


AGRICULTURE,  MANUFACTURES,  AND  MINING. 


157 


manufacturing,  or  for  comparison  within  a  single  group,  because 
such  a  comparison  would  rest  only  on  the  assumption  that  all 
the  value  produced  in  the  industry  was  distributed  to  labor.  The 
return  here  pictured  as  per  capita  gives  no  indication  of  the 
actual  return  in  the  industry. 

Table  41. — Per  Capita  Value  of  Products:  Agriculture,  Manu- 
factures, AND  Mining,  19 19. 


PER  CArlT.\  VALUE  OF 

PRODUCTS  FOR 
PERSONS   ENGAGED  IN — 

GEOGRAPHIC  DIVISION. 

PER  CAPITA  VAtUE  OP 

PRODUCTS   FOR 

PERSONS    ENG.\GED    IN — 

GEOGRAPHIC  DIVISIOK. 

Agricul- 
ture. 

Manufac- 
turing 
and 
mining.' 

Agricul- 
ture. 

Manufac- 
turing 
and 
mining.' 

United  States. . . 

1,968 

2,372 

West  North  Central. 
South  Atlantic .... 
East  South  Central . 
West  South  Central. 

Mountain 

Pacific 

3.328 

1,187 

966 

I. 517 
2,210 

2.875 

2.386 
2,061 
1,761 

2,949 

2,852 
2,700 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic .... 
East  North  Central.  . 

2,094 

2,363 
2,726 

2,io6 
2,434 

2.457 

'  Including  production  of  oil  and  gas. 

This  analysis  reveals  the  fact  that  the  similarity  is  not  as  great 
as  at  first  appeared.  However,  if  the  extraction  of  minerals 
is  separated  from  manufactures,  the  Western  states  tend  to  con- 
form more  nearly  to  the  Eastern,  and  in  the  case  of  manufactures 
a  fairly  constant  ratio  is  discovered.  The  lack  of  any  constant 
ratio  for  agriculture  is  made  evident  by  a  comparison  of  the  West 
North  Central  with  the  East  South  Central  group.  The  three 
southern  groups,  in  fact,  show  ratios  much  lower  than  those  for 
the  remainder  of  the  country.  The  Negro  element  in  the  agri- 
cultural group  in  the  South  is  doubtless  responsible  in  large 
measure  for  this  situation.  In  both  groups  the  lowest  per  capita 
is  that  for  the  East  South  Central  division,  which  is  the  heart 
of  the  black  belt.  The  South  Atlantic  is  next  in  all  particulars. 
Another  cause  of  the  difference  in  this  respect  between  the  North 
and  the  South  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  in  the  northern 
states  much  of  the  agricultural  work— in  particular,  the  harv^est- 
ing — is  performed  by  casual  laborers.  Such  laborers,  however, 
were  largely  in  cities  on  the  Fourteenth  Census  date  (January  i, 
1920)  and  were  accordingly  enumerated  as  engaged  in  nonagri- 
cultural  occupations.  This  resulted  in  an  exaggeration  of  the 
per  capita  value-product  for  agriculture  in  the  North.  That 
there  is  a  close  relationship  between  value  added  and  number  ot 
workers  in  manufacturing  seems  to  be  here  suggested.  Such 
relationship  is  emphasized  by  further  consideration  of  the  subject. 


Q 
O 
c^ 

< 
D 

-4 
U 

2 
o 
< 


158 


IS9 


160 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


The  following  table  of  proportions  (a  summary  of  Table  63, 
p.  249)  advances  the  analysis: 

Table  42. — Urbanization  of  Population  in  Comparison  with 
Industrial  Development,  by  Geographic  Divisions: 

1920,  1910,  AND  1850. 


GEOGRAPHIC  DIVISION  AND 
CENSUS  YEAR. 


United  States: 

1920 

1910 

1850 

New  England: 

1920 

1910 , 

1850 

Middle  Atlantic: 

1920 , 

1910 , 

1850 

East  North  Central 

1920 

1910 , 

1850 

West  North  Central 

1920 

1910 , 

1850 

South  Atlantic: 

1920 , 

1910 

1850 

East  South  Central 

1920 

1910 

1850 

West  South  Central 

1920 

1910 , 

1850 

Mountain : 

1920 

1910 

1850 

Pacific : 

1920 

1910 

1850 


PER  CENT  OF  TOTAL  COM- 
PRISING VALUE  OF  AGRI- 
CULTURAL PRODUCTS, 
VALUE  ADDED  BY  MANU- 
FACTURE, AND  VALUE  OF 
PRODUCTS  OF  MINERAL 
INDUSTRIES.' 


Agricul- 
tural 
prod- 
ucts. 


42.6 

45-8 
71-5 


Value 
added  by 

manu- 
facture. 


51-0 
47-4 
26.5 


Mineral 
prod- 
ucts. 


6.4 
6.9 
1.9 


12.5 

iS-5 
37-1 

87.0 

83.3 
61.4 

13-9 
16.5 

55-5 

78.2 

74.3 
41.8 

36.3 
42.6 

85.3 

59-7 
51-7 
14.0 

76.6 
77-5 
83-5 

19-5 
18.3 
15-6 

53-2 
56.0 
85.1 

39-4 
37-4 
14.0 

67.1 
67.8 
93-7 

25-9 

27.6 

6.1 

68.9 

18.6 

74.8 
93-2 

21.0 
6.8 

59-1 
48.1 
92.8 

20.2 

20.6 

7.2 

46.2 

48.2 

8.8 

47-3 

42.7 

7.6 

1.2 

1-5 


4.0 
5.6 
0.7 


71 
4.6 
0.2 


4.1 

20.8 
31.2 


6.6 

9.2 

83.6 


PER  CENT  OP  TOTAL  PER- 
SONS ENGAGED  IN  AGRI- 
CULTURE, MANUF-\C- 
TURES,  AND  PRODUCTION 
OF  MINERALS.* 


Agricul- 
ture. 


Manu- 
fac- 
tures. 


47.2 
58.4 


48.0 


12.5 
18.4 

e) 
14.2 

47-2 

e) 

33-9 

47-4 

ih 

70.1 
76.4 

e) 

66.3 
74.8 
e) 

78.8 
85.5 

81. 1 
88.4 
(') 

65.1 
64.9 

(') 
44.6 

S7-0 


87.0 
80.3 

77.6 
67.9 

e) 

61.7 
46.6 
e) 

27.0 
19.6 
e) 

29.2 
21.6 
(') 

16.9 

II. 6 

e) 

15-5 
10.3 

(=•) 

21.0 
16.6 

e) 

52-5 

37-7 


Produc- 
tion of 
miner- 
als. 


4.8 


Per  cent 
urban 

in 
total 
popu- 
lation. 


51-4 
45-8 
17.9 


Per 
cent  of 
jjopula- 
tion  in 
cities  of 
100,000 
and 
over 
and 
their 
adja- 
cent 
terri- 
tory.' 


0-5 

79.2 

76.3 
j     42.6 

8.2 

74-9 

"•3 

71.0 
26. 1 

4.4 

60.8 

6.0 

52.7 
9-3 

2.9 

37-7 

4.0 

33-3 
10.9 

4.4 

31.0 

25-4 
II. 6 

4-3 

22.4 

2.9 

18.7 
3-7 

3-4 

29.0 

ei^ 

22.3 

14.0 
18.4 

36-4 

36.0 

6.6 

2.9 

63.4 
56.8 
14.3 

34-9 
29.4 


58.9 
48.9 

{') 

63.0 

5f7 

39-6 
31.6 

h 

19.6 
16.6 
(') 

16.3 
12. 1 

(=•) 

12.3 
10.6 
(') 

10.8 
4.2 

13.3 
9.1 

47.1 

43-4 


'  Relates  to  calendar  year  preceding  census  year.    Mineral  products  include  oil  and  gas. 
'The  term  "adjacent  territory"  refers  to  the  area  lying  within  approximately  lo  miles  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  the  central  city. 
'  Data  incomplete. 
*  Less  than  one-tenth  of  i  per  cent. 


w 

6.  H 


OJ   Q 

O    6} 

«  2 

"  w 

W 

o 

W 


107°— 22- 


-11 


i6i 


162 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


In  this  table  are  revealed  the  proportions  which  the  numbers  of 
persons  engaged  in  agriculture,  manufacturing,  and  mining  con- 
stituted of  the  total  of  the  three  and  also  the  corresponding  pro- 
portions for  the  value  of  products  in  the  case  of  agriculture  and 
mining,  and  for  value  added  in  the  case  of  manufacturing.  Ignor- 
ing absolute  values,  the  state  or  division  is  judged  by  the  propor- 
tions which  manufacturing,  agriculture,  and  mining  represent 
within  its  boundaries. 

In  1920  the  proportions  as  represented  in  the  table  were,  for  the 
entire  cotmtry,  such  that  in  agriculture  47.2  per  cent  of  the  per- 
sons in  the  three  groups  engaged  produced  42.6  per  cent  of  the 
total  value  produced  by  the  three  groups;  in  manufacturing,  on 
the  other  hand,  48  per  cent  of  the  total  persons  engaged  ^  produced 
51  per  cent  of  the  total  value;  while  in  mining  4.8  per  cent  of  the 
total  workers  ^  were  responsible  for  6.4  per  cent  of  the  value- 
product. 

In  general,  there  is  throughout  the  various  divisions  and  states, 
except  in  the  case  of  the  mining  group,  a  fair  degree  of  similarity 
between  the  proportions  of  persons  engaged  and  the  value  pro- 
portions.    In  terms  of  these  proportions,  the  order  of  the  divisions 

was: 

Agriculture. 


GEOGRAPHIC   DIVISION. 


West  Nortli  Central . 
West  South  Central , 
East  South  Central . 

Mountain 

South  Atlantic 

Pacific 

East  North  Central . 
Middle  Atlantic  .  .  . 
New  England 


PERSONS 

ENGAGED. 

VALUE  OF 

PRODUCTS. 

Rank. 

Per  cent. 

Rank. 

Per  cent. 

3 

70.1 

I 

76.6 

I 

81.  I 

2 

68.9 

2 

78.8 

3 

67.1 

5 

65.1 

4 

59- I 

4 

66.3 

5 

53-2 

6 

44.6 

6 

46.  2 

7 

33-9 

7 

36.3 

8 

14.2 

8 

13-9 

9 

12.  5 

9 

12.5 

^  The  terms  "persons  engaged"  and  "workers"  are  used  s>Tionymously  throughout 
this  chapter  and  include  clerks,  salaried  officials,  etc.,  as  well  as  wage  earners.  All 
proportions  of  the  total  workers  and  total  value  of  products  are  stated  as  percentages 
of  the  respective  aggregates  for  the  three  groups  of  industries  under  consideration, 
not  0/  the  aggregates  for  all  industries  combined. 


AGRICULTURE,  MANUFACTURES,  AND  MINING. 


163 


Manufachires. 


GEOGRAPHIC  DIVISION. 


New  England 

Middle  Atlantic  .  .  . 
East  North  Central . 

Pacific 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central . 

Mountain 

West  North  Central 
West  South  Central 


PERSONS   ENGAGED. 


Rank.       !     Per  cent. 


87.0 
77.6 
61.  7 

52-5 
29.  2 
16.  9 
21.  O 
27.0 

15-5 


VALUE  ADDED  BY 
.M.\NJFACTURE. 


Per  cent. 


78.2 

59-7 
47-3 
39-4 

25-9 
20.  2 

19-5 
18.6 


Mining  {including  production  of  oil  and  gas). 


GEOGRAPHIC   DIVISION. 


Mountain 

West  South  Central 
Middle  Atlantic  .  .  . 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central 

Pacific 

East  North  Central 
West  North  Central 
New  England 


PERSONS  ENGAGED. 


14.  O 
3-4 

8.2 

4-  4 
4-3 
2.9 

4-4 
2.9 

0-5 


VALUE  OF  PRODUCTS. 


Rank. 


20.8 
12.  5 
7-9 
7-  5 
7-  I 
6.6 
4.0 
3-9 
o-  5 


The  relation  of  the  value  proportion  and  the  worker  propor- 
tion is  even  more  clearly  displayed  by  an  examination  of  these 
relationships  for  states.  Three  groups  of  states  have  been  pre- 
pared for  examination,  the  10  leading  in  proportions  of  persons 
engaged  in  agriculture,  the  10  in  manufactiu'ing,  and  the  10  in 
mining. 

The  figures  for  the  leading  5  Northern  and  leading  5  Southern 
agricultural  states,  as  determined  by  proportions  of  persons  en- 
gaged, are  as  follows: 

States  Having  Largest  Proportions  of  Agricultural  Workers:  igng. 


STATE. 

Per  cent  of 

total  persons 

engaged. 

Per  cent  of 
total  value 
of  products. 

STATE. 

Per  cent  of 

total  persons 

engaged. 

Per  cent 

of  total 

value  of 

products. 

NORTH. 

North  Dakota .  .  . 
South  Dakota .  . . 
Nebraska      . .  . 

94-4 
91-5 
79.1 

77-9 
73  5 

96.  I 
94-4 
87.1 
78.7 
85-5 

SOUTH. 

Mississippi  .... 

Arkansas 

Texas 

88.5 
86.6 

837 
82.7 
80.7 

79-5 
79-5 
74-7 
75-4 
70-5 

Idaho 

South  Carolina  . 
Georgia 

Iowa 

164 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 


It  will  appear  from  the  above  separation  into  groups  that  the 
two  columns  bear  entirely  different  relationships  to  each  other  in 
the  two  parts  of  the  country.  In  every  Northern  state,  the  value 
proportion  is  higher  than  the  worker  proportion ;  in  every  Southern 
state  the  worker  proportion  is  higher  than  the  value  propor- 
tion. A  more  striking  instance  of  this  situation  in  the  South- 
em  states  is  that  of  Louisiana,  where  70.2  per  cent  of  the 
workers  create  44.9  per  cent  of  the  total  value.  Presumably 
this  difference  in  ratio  is  due  to  three  causes:  First,  the  extent 
of  Negro  labor  in  the  South,  where  Negro  laborers  are  gener- 
ally recorded  as  agricultural  workers,  yet  are  perhaps  not  the 
equivalent  of  the  same  number  of  agricultural  workers  in  the 
Northern  states;  second,  the  more  extensive  use  of  machinery  in 
the  Northern  states,  which  increases  the  value  proportion  without 
affecting  the  number  of  workers;  third,  the  fact  that  much  of  the 
northern  agriculture  is  carried  on  by  casual  labor — the  harvesting, 
for  example.  These  men  on  January  i,  1920,  when  the  census 
was  taken,  were  in  cities,  but  during  the  summer  became  agricul- 
tural workers.  Therefore,  the  figure  for  agricultural  workers  in 
the  Northern  states  would  have  a  tendency  to  be  too  low. 

This  table  would  tend  to  substantiate  the  first  general  state- 
ment made  as  a  result  of  the  examination  of  Table  4 1 ,  that  the 
number  of  workers  in  agriculture  was  not  closely  related  to  the 
value  of  agricultural  products. 

A  similar  investigation  into  the  states  which  lead  in  manu- 
factures results  in  the  following : 


States  Having  Largest  Proportions 

of  Workers  in  Manufactures:  19 19. 

STATE. 

Per  cent  of 

total  persons 

engaged. 

Per  cent  of 

total  value 

added  by 

manufacture. 

STATE. 

Per  cent  of 

total  persons 

engaged. 

Per  cent  of 

total  value 

added  by 

manufacture. 

Rhode  Island  — 

95-3                  96.2 
94.0                 94.5 
90.7                  91. I 
90. 2               90 . 6 
8^   I               Ra  1 

New  Hampshire .  . 
Ohio 

77.6 
68.1 
68.0 
65-4 
64.3 

77-9 
67.4 

New  Jersey 

Connecticut 

Pennsylvania.  .  .  . 

Delaware 

Michigan 

67.8 
71.7 
69.0 

A  remarkable  similarity  is  here  indicated  between  the  propor- 
tions, especially  for  the  states  which  are  predominantly  manu- 
facturing. Naturally,  as  the  proportions  decrease,  they  are  more 
affected  by  the  proportions  for  the  other  groups  within  the  states. 


AGRICULTURE,  MANUFACTURES,  AND  MINING. 


165 


Unlike  the  proportions  shown  in  connection  with  agriculture,  the 
proportions  of  the  total  persons  engaged  and  value  added  for 
manufacturing  show  a  striking  similarity.  The  extent  to  which 
manufactures  overshadows  agriculture  in  the  leading  five  states  is 
worthy  of  note. 

Mining  as  an  industry  within  the  country  does  not  assume  the 
same  proportions  as  agriculture  or  manufactures.  The  leading  lo 
states  are : 

States  Having  Largest  Proportions  of  Workers  in  Mining  (including 
production  of  oil  and  gas):  igig. 


STATB. 

Per  cent  of 

total  persons 

engaged. 

Per  cent  of 
total  value 
of  products. 

STATE. 

Per  cent  of 

total  persons 

engaged. 

Per  cent  of 
total  value 
of  products. 

West  Virginia .  . . 
Nevada 

34-2 
28.8 
26.9 

23-4 
18.0 

45-2 

35-5 
50.2 
28.1 
17.9 

Montana 

Utah 

14-5 
14.0 
II. 4 
II. I 
10.4 

21.2 
23.6 
II. 9 
18.2 
26.2 

Arizona 

Colorado 

New  Mexico.  ..  . 
Oklahoma 

Wyoming 

Pennsylvania... . 

Since  in  no  state  in  the  Union  does  mining  assume  proportions 
larger  than  both  agriculture  and  manufactures,  it  is  difficult  to 
determine  its  exact  relation  to  population.  It  is  evident  that  the 
proportion  which  the  value  of  its  product  forms  of  the  total  value 
of  products  is  greater  than  the  proportion  which  the  number  of 
its  workers  constitutes  in  the  corresponding  total.  This,  of 
course,  represents  a  greater  per  capita  return  in  mining  than  in 
the  other  branches  of  industry.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
Pennsylvania,  which  is  made  eligible  for  this  group  because  of  the 
vast  amount  of  coal  mined  within  its  boundaries,  is  the  only  state 
of  the  group  in  which  the  relationship  just  noted  does  not  hold 
true.  That  mining  plays  no  important  part  in  the  actual  popu- 
lation distribution  is  evidenced  by  a  comparison  of  the  size  of  the 
proportions  returned  for  each  of  the  three  groups.  For  the  5 
Northern  and  5  Southern  states  leading  in  agriculture,  the  aver- 
age proportion  of  persons  engaged  in  that  particular  branch  of 
industry  was  83.9  per  cent;  for  the  10  states  leading  in  manufac- 
turing, the  average  was  79.7  per  cent;  for  the  10  states  leading 
in  mining,  the  average  was  19.3  per  cent.  Mining,  obviously,  is  a 
much  less  important  factor  than  either  of  the  other  two  branches 
of  industry. 

The  relationship  of  these  industrial  groups  to  the  urban  and 
rural  distribution  of  the  population  requires  little  comment.     From 


166  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

the  very  nature  of  the  industry,  agriculture  necessitates  rural  life, 
whereas  manufacturing  requires  the  grouping  of  individuals 
together  in  cities  or  large  communities.  The  columns  in  Table  63 
which  give,  for  the  purpose  of  comparison,  the  proportion  of  the 
area  which  is  urban  are  significant.  The  10  agricultural  states 
have  an  average  proportion  of  23  per  cent  urban;  the  10  manu- 
facturing states  have  an  average  proportion  of  73  per  cent  urban, 
while  the  first  5  manufacturing  states  have  an  even  higher  urban 
proportion,  or  85  per  cent.  This  is  even  further  emphasized  by  a 
consideration  of  the  population  in  cities  of  over  100,000  and  their 
adjacent  territory  (referring  to  the  area  lying  within  approximately 
10  miles  of  the  boundaries  of  the  central  city).  Among  the  first  5 
states  in  which  manufacturing  predominates,  75  per  cent  of  the 
total  population  were  in  this  urban  classification.  Among  the 
5  Northern  and  5  Southern  states  leading  in  agriculture,  5  per 
cent  of  the  population  were  in  such  communities. 

It  remains  to  discuss  the  changes  which  have  taken  place  in 
both  population  and  industry  during  the  decade.  In  any  com- 
parison between  different  censuses  the  change  in  the  census  date 
must  be  kept  in  mind,  since  a  change  from  April  15,  the  date  of 
the  1910  census,  to  January  i,  the  date  of  the  1920  census,  neces- 
sarily affects  the  number  engaged  in  agriculture. 

As  early  as  1850  the  relationship  between  the  proportion  of 
urban  population  and  the  nature  of  the  industry  within  the  area 
was  clearly  indicated.  Indeed,  with  the  country  as  little  developed 
as  it  was  in  1850,  the  relationship  was  even  more  marked  than  it 
is  at  the  present  time.  In  1920  the  leading  four  urban  divisions 
were  the  leading  four  manufacturing  divisions,  and  were  also  those 
having  the  lowest  four  proportions  for  agriculture.  Apparently, 
however,  cities  were  not  as  dependent  upon  manufacturing  in  1920 
as  they  were  in  earlier  years,  while  the  rank  of  the  state  in  terms 
of  agriculture  is  not  necessarily  the  converse  of  its  rank  in 
manufacturing. 

A  definite  change  in  the  position  of  agriculture  and  manufac- 
turing has  been  going  on  for  years.  In  1850  agriculture  produced 
71.5  per  cent  of  the  total  value  for  agriculture,  manufacturing, 
and  mining.  By  19 10,  although  the  number  of  persons  engaged  in 
manufacturing  was  less  than  the  number  in  agriculture,  the  value 
added  by  manufacture  was  greater  than  the  value  of  agricultural 
products.     This  ascendency  of  manufactures  continued  during  the 


AGRICULTURE,  MANUFACTURES,  AND  MINING.  167 

decade,  and  the  1920  census  recorded  a  slightly  greater  proportion 
of  wage  earners  in  manufactures  and  a  value  added  by  manu- 
facture nearly  20  per  cent  greater  than  the  value  of  agricultural 
products.  During  the  last  decade,  mining  lost  ground  in  both 
categories.  The  urban  development  of  the  country-  paralleled  the 
development  of  manufactures  and  passed  the  50  per  cent  mark 
between  19 10  and  1920. 

The  tendency  of  the  last  decade  has  been  largely  to  bring  the 
proportions  for  value  and  for  workers  together.  In  19 10  the 
discrepancy  for  agriculture  was  12.6  per  cent;  for  manufactures, 
I  I.I  per  cent.  These  variations  were  reduced  in  1920  to  4.6 
per  cent  for  agriculture  and  3  per  cent  for  manufactures.  This 
same  tendency  toward  a  closer  similarity  can  be  traced  in  most  of 
the  divisions  and  states.  The  three  southern  divisions  were  those 
in  which  the  19 10  census  found  the  greatest  diversity  in  propor- 
tions. In  each  case  the  census  of  1920  recorded  changes  resulting 
in  more  similar  proportions.  In  two  divisions,  the  East  and  West 
South  Central,  the  high  proportion  for  value  added  by  manufac- 
ture decreased,  while  the  low  proportion  for  workers  increased. 
It  is  probably  true  that  there  is  a  certain  equilibrium  which 
will  eventually  be  reached,  although  the  varying  use  of  capital 
in  the  two  groups  may  result  in  different  proportions  for  the 
value  of  products  and  for  the  number  of  workers. 

The  division  showing  the  greatest  change  in  characteristics  dur- 
ing the  period  from  1850  to  1920  was  the  East  North  Central. 
Classed  in  1850  as  one  of  the  agricultural  areas,  it  has  since  reached 
third  place  among  industrial  areas.  Such  rapid  changes  as  that  of 
the  state  of  Michigan,  from  an  agricultural  state  to  an  industrial 
state,  have  been  factors  in  this  development.  With  the  industrial 
change  has  come  a  decided  expansion  in  population. 

In  order  to  compare  the  changes  and  developments  during  the 
decade.  Table  64  has  been  prepared,  a  summary  of  which  will 
be  found  as  Table  43,  page  1 68 .  This  table  states  the  per  cent  which 
the  increase  or  decrease  in  any  particular  division  or  state  formed 
of  the  total  increase  or  decrease  in  the  United  States. 

An  examination  of  the  figures  for  the  geographic  divisions  shows 
that  the  columns  which  bear  a  strildng  resemblance  are  those  for 
increase  in  population,  increase  in  value  added  by  manufactures, 
and  increase  in  persons  engaged  in  manufactures.  The  columns 
depicting  increase  or  decrease  for  agriculture  and  mining  show 


168 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


little  apparent  relation  to  each  other  or  to  other  groupings  in  the 
table.  Even  a  casual  inspection  makes  it  evident  that  manufac- 
turing development  for  the  decade  controlled  the  distribution  of 
population  increase. 

Tabi^E  43. — Increase  in  Population  in  Comparison  with 
Increase  in  Industrial  Activity,  by  Geographic  Divisions: 
1910-1920. 

[The  division  percentages  in  this  table  are  based,  respectively,  not  on  net  increase  or  decrease  in  the 
country  as  a  whole,  but  on  the  total  increase  in  those  divisions  in  which  increases  took  place  or  on  the 
total  decrease  in  those  divisions  in  which  decreases  took  place.  Thus  the  percentages  of  total  increase 
and  the  f>ercentages  of  total  decrease  (  — )  in  each  column  totahze  separately  to  loo.] 


GSOGRAFHIC  DIVISION. 


United  States .  .  . . 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central . . . 
West  North  Central.  .. 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central . . . 
West  South  Central... 

Mountain 

Pacific 


PER    CENT   WHICH   INCREASE   OR    DECREASE   IN    DIVISION    FORMED    OF     TOTAL 
INCREASE   OR   DECREASE   IN   UNITED   STATES — 


In  popu- 
lation. 


6. 

21. 

6. 
13- 

3-5 
10.6 

5-1 
10. o 


In  value 
of  agri- 
cultural 
products. 


1.9 

6.6 

19.9 

24.9 

12.8 

7-9 

14.5 

4-7 

6.8 


In  value 
added  by 
manufac- 
ture. 


In  value 
of  mineral 
products. 


In  num- 
ber of 
r>ersons 
engaged 
in  agri- 
culture.' 


In  num- 
ber of 
persons 
engaged 
in  manu- 
facturing 
indus- 
tries.' 


In  num- 
ber of 
persons 
engaged 

in 
produc- 
tion of 
miner- 
als.' 


100. 0 


12, 

33' 
29. 

5' 
7- 
2. 
2, 


5-7 


0.1 

-3-1 

10.3 

25.2 

12.7 

7.8 

-8.6 
-12.7 

-8.2 

27.9 

35-0 

5.6 

12.8 

6.9 

23.1 

-25-9 
-25-5 
-16. 1 

5-9 

2-5 
3-2 

6.1 

5-4 

44-8 

1.4 
8.3 

-8.0 
-44.6 

-15-6 

-18.8 

20.6 

27.8 

51-5 

-7-5 

-5-4 


'  Percentages  based  on  figures  for  agriculture  and  animal  husbandry,  as  shown  by  occupations  report. 

2  Percentages  based  on  totals  shown  by  manufactures  repwrt. 

'  Percentages  based  on  totals  shown  by  mines  and  quarries  report.    Mineral  products  include  oil  and  gas. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that,  whereas  the  changes  in  location  of 
persons  engaged  in  manufactiu'es  have  corresponded  very  de- 
cidedly with  the  changes  in  the  value  added  by  manufacture, 
the  same  relationship  does  not  hold  for  agricultiu-e  or  mining. 
The  factors  guiding  the  changes  in  manufacturing  proportions  are 
such  as  to  keep  them  in  much  closer  relationship  than  those  in 
agriculture. 

In  the  first  place,  the  return  in  manufactures  is  related  much 
more  closely  to  cost  of  production  than  that  in  agriculture. 
Consequently  a  change  in  value  is  reflected  in  wages  much  more 
readily  in  manufactures  than  in  agricultiu-e,  and  this  would 
result  in  a  redistribution  of  individuals  much  more  rapidly  than 
where  there  was  no  wage  change. 


AGRICULTURE,  MANUFACTURES,  AND  MINING. 


169 


Likewise,  the  relationship  between  production  and  price  is 
much  closer  in  manufacturing  than  in  agriculture.  The  farmer 
produces,  with  no  knowledge  whether  his  crop  will  be  a  profit  or 

Per  Cent  of  Increase  in  Population,  1910-1920,  and  in  Manufactures, 

1909-1919. 


POPULATION 

URBAN 
RURAL 

MANUFACTURES 

ESTABLISHMENTS  (NUM^gR) 

WAGE  EARNERS  (avERAQE  NUMBER) 

CAPITAL 

WAGES 

COST  OF  MATERIALS 

VALUE  OF  PRODUCTS 

VALUE  ADDED  BY  MANUFACTURE 


a  loss,  since  the  price  is  far  beyond  his  control ;  however,  he  does 
produce.  The  manufacturer,  on  the  other  hand,  is  much  more 
closely  in  touch  with  his  market  and  is  able  to  adjust  his  pro- 
duction to  the  return  therefrom. 

Per  Cent  of  Increase  in  Population  and  Agriculture:  1910-1920. 


0 

60 

PER  CENT 

100                             ISO 

200 

1 
■ 

■i 

"** 



**"' 

"'"' 

m 

__ 

^^^^ 

1 

— 

1^ 

Bl 

PER  CENT 
100 


POPULATION 

URBAN 
RURAL 

AGRICULTURE 
NUMBER  OF  FARMS 
ALL   LAND  IN  FARMS 

IMPROVED  LAND  IN  FARMS 
VALUE  OF  ALL   FARM  PROPERTY 
LAND  AND  BUILDINGS 
LAND    ALONE 
BUILDINGS 
IMPLEMENTS  AND  MACHINERY 
LIVE    STOCK 


^" 

I 

1 

■ 

I 

^™ 

JJ™ 

^™ 

™ 

^^ 

^^ 

^^ 

^^* 

L__      ._ 

^^H 

^* 

- 

^^^ 

___ 

^^^^^^^ 

^^* 

^^H 

^ 

■B 

Further,  manufacturing  represents  a  more  mobile  group  of 
workers  than  those  in  agriculture.  They  are  less  bound  by 
ownership,  or  by  tradition,  to  remain  in  any  particular  locality. 
They  are  urban  dwellers  and,  as  such,  can  move  to  other  cities 


170  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  19l(>-1920. 

with  much  less  difficulty  than  is  involved  in  any  change  on  the 
part  of  the  agricultural  population. 

Finally,  the  decade  was  a  manufacturing  decade.  The  last  5 
years  were  years  of  manufacturing  predominance.  Consequently 
manufacturing  was  able  to  outbid  agriculture,  and  therefore  any 
changes  occurring  during  the  decade  would  be  in  accordance 
with  the  industrial  developments. 

From  this  discussion  two  generalizations  may  be  drawn:  (i)  The 
fact  that  manufacturing,  rather  than  agriculture,  is  the  determin- 
ing factor  in  effecting  marked  population  changes;  and  (2)  the 
tendency  of  the  proportions  for  value  of  products  and  workers 
toward  increasing  similarity. 


XV. 

OUTLYING  POSSESSIONS,  EXCLUSIVE  OF  PHILIPPINES 
AND  VIRGIN  ISLANDS. 

With  the  First  Census  of  the  United  States,  and  at  every 
succeeding  census,  there  have  been  enumerated  geographic  areas 
which  were  not  states  of  the  Union.  These  areas,  observed 
from  census  to  census,  form  a  striking  picture  of  organization  of 
new  territory  and  its  rapid  development  to  a  degree  of  population 
strength  which  justified  entrance  into  the  Union  of  states.  Since 
1 91 2,  when  Arizona  and  New  Mexico  were  admitted  to  the 
Union,  there  have  remained  as  territories  only  Alaska,  Hawaii, 
and  Porto  Rico. 

There  began  also  to  appear  other  outlying  areas  enumerated  at 
the  decennial  census:  Guam,  American  Samoa,  and  the  Panama 
Canal  Zone.  Thus  at  the  census  of  1920  the  nonstate  areas, 
which  at  previous  censuses  had  included  territories  within  the 
continental  area  of  the  Nation,  comprised  only  the  District  of 
Columbia,  Alaska,  the  Panama  Canal  Zone,  and  various  islands  in 
the  Atlantic  and  Pacific.  Table  65,  which  appears  on  page  254, 
presents  a  list  of  nonstate  areas  enumerated  at  each  census.  It  is 
appropriate  that  there  should  be  included  here  some  reference  to 
the  population  of  outlying  areas  enumerated  at  the  Fourteenth 
Census.     These  areas,  with  their  population  in  1920,  are  as  follows: 


Alaska  Territory 55 , 036 

Hawaii  Territory 255,912 

Porto  Rico  Territory i ,  299 ,  809 


Guam 13.275 

American  Samoa 8, 056 

Panama  Canal  Zone 22 ,  858 


AIvASKA. 

Between  1910  and  1920  the  population  of  Alaska  decreased 
from  64,356  to  55,036,  that  is,  by  9,320,  or  14.5  per  cent.  This 
decrease  was  the  result  of  less  profitable  mining  and  fishing 
operations  and  the  consequent  departure  from  the  territory  of 
persons  whose  sole  interest  was  in  these  enterprises. 

The  first  census  of  Alaska  was  taken  in  1880,  13  years  after 
the  purchase  by  the  United  States  from  Russia  of  this  vast 
northern  territory.  The  population  doubled  from  1S90  to  1900, 
the  period  of  greatest  mining  excitement,  and  remained  practically 
stationary  until  the  census  of  1910,  covering  the  period  of  pro- 

171 


172 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


duction.  The  census  of  1920  suggests  the  general  tendency  to 
"clean  up"  and  the  failure  to  develop  further  spectacular  dis- 
coveries. It  is  not,  however,  from  the  finding  and  feverish 
mining  of  precious  metals  that  permanent  prosperity  and  popu- 
lation are  secured,  if  the  history  of  California  and  Nevada  mining 
communities  afford  fair  examples;  and,  since  it  is  now  agreed  that 
Alaska  offers  great  opportunity  for  future  development  in  agri- 
culture, lumber,  coal,  and  fisheries,  it  is  likely  that  future  censuses 
will  record  solid  and  gratifying  increases,  the  first  signs  of  which 
appeared  in  1920  in  the  growing  equality  of  the  sexes,  in  the  face 
of  a  sharp  decrease  in  total  population.  The  decrease,  moreover, 
was  largely  among  the  foreign  bom.  With  the  native  Americans 
decreasing  at  a  comparatively  slow  rate  and  establishing  famihes, 
the  future  of  the  territory,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  is  now  being  laid  on 
more  secure  foundations. 

There  is  but  one  town  in  Alaska  which  the  Census  Bureau  would 
class  as  an  urban  community — Juneau,  in  the  southern  district, 
with  3,058  inhabitants.  Four  other  towns  have  more  than  1,000 
inhabitants  each:  Ketchikan,  2,458;  Anchorage,  1,856;  Sitka, 
1,175;  ^iid  Fairbanks,  1,155.  In  19 10  there  were  7  towns  instead 
of  5  having  more  than  1,000  inhabitants  each.  An  interesting 
example  of  the  collapse  of  boom  expansion  is  Nome,  which  had 
12,488  inhabitants  in  1900,  2,600  in  1910,  and  only  852  in  1920. 
There  are  in  the  territory  a  total  of  17  incorporated  towns,  151 
unincorporated  villages,  5  unincorporated  towns,  5  forts,  5  islands, 
and  2  stations.  Among  them  some  had  as  few  as  16  or  18 
inhabitants. 

Table  44. — Raciai,  Composition  of  the  Population  of  Alaska: 

1920  AND  1910. 


COLOR   OR   RACE. 


Total  population 

White 

Native 

Foreign-bom 

Indian 

Chinese 

Japanese 

Negro 

Another 


55.036 


27.883 
16,286 

".597 

26,558 

56 
312 
128 

99 


64,356 


36,400 
18,426 
17.974 

25.331 
1,209 

913 
209 

294 


PER  CENT  OP  TOTAL. 


100. 0 


50.7 
29.6 
21.  I 

48.3 
O.  I 
0.6 
0.2 
0.2 


56.6 

23 

28.6 

II . 

27.9 

35- 

39-4 

+4- 

1.9 

95- 

1-4 

65- 

03 

38. 

o-S 

66. 

Percent  of 

decrease  or 

increase 

(  +  ) 
1910-1930. 


14.5 


OUTLYING  POSSESSIONS. 


173 


This  table  brings  out  the  decrease  in  population  among  the 
foreign-bom  white,  which  accounts  for  68.4  per  cent  of  the  total 
decrease  shown  by  Alaska  in  1920.  A  further  analysis  of  the 
foreign-bom  decrease  in  terms  of  nationality  results  in  the 
following  tabulation : 


COUNTRY   OF  BIRTH. 

1930 

I910 

COUNTRY  OP  BIRTH. 

1920 

1910 

2,  169 

1,716 

1,688 

843 

2,597 
2,208 
2,717 
1,550 

Finland 

794 
601 
562 
329 

976 

Ireland 

1,157 

England 

1,023 

Italy 

744 

Three  nationalities — Norwegian,  Swedish,  and  Canadian — were 
largely  in  the  majority  among  the  foreign  bom.  The  decreases  of 
these  nationaHties  have  apparently  been  proportionally  less  heavy 
than  those  of  the  others. 

The  decrease  in  persons  gainfully  employed  in  Alaska  exceeded 
the  decrease  in  the  total  population,  the  loss  in  population  being 
9,320,  while  the  decrease  in  persons  gainfully  employed  was 
13,276.  One  factor  in  bringing  about  this  curious  result  was  the 
tendency  during  the  decade  toward  more  nearly  normal  proportions 
between  the  sexes.  Such  a  redistribution  is  of  great  importance, 
especially  in  shifting  the  number  of  persons  actually  wage  earners 
and  in  determining  the  natural  rate  of  increase.  The  figures  are 
as  follows: 


SEX. 

1920 

1910 

Male               

34,539 
20,497 

45,857 

Female 

18,499 

There  were,  in  1910,  247.9  males  for  every  100  females,  which 
figure  w^as  reduced  in  1920  to  168.5  males  for  every  100  females. 
Such  a  change  also  resulted  in  a  decided  increase  in  tlie  proportion 
of  married  males.  The  percentage  of  males  over  15  years  of  age 
who  were  married  increased  from  30.9  in  1910  to  39.2  in  1920, 
while  there  was  practically  no  change  in  the  proportion  of  females 
married. 

The  decrease  in  persons  gainfully  employed  was  distributed 
throughout  all  the  occupational  groups  save  agriculture.  The 
greatest  decreases  occurred  in  the  mining  and  manufacturing 
groups,  indicating  a  decided  falling  off  in  those  forms  of  industrial 
activity. 


174 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


HAWAII. 

The  Hawaiian  Islands,  nine  in  number,  were  acquired  by  tlie 
United  States  in  1898  and  were  organized  as  the  territory  of 
Hawaii  in  June,  1900.  The  Federal  censuses  since  that  time  have 
reported  considerable  increases  in  population.  The  number  of 
inhabitants  in  1900  was  154,001;  in  1910,  191,909;  and  in  1920, 
255,912,  the  increase  during  the  last  decade  being  64,003,  or  33.4 
per  cent. 

The  entire  population  of  Hawaii  which  might  be  termed  urban 
resides  in  two  cities,  Honolulu  and  Hilo.  Honolulu,  much  the 
larger,  is  on  Oahu  Island,  and  recorded  in  1920  a  total  population 
of  83,327,  an  increase  of  59.7  per  cent  over  the  number  of  its 
inhabitants  in  1910.  Hilo  had  a  population  of  10,431  in  1920, 
having  increased  slightly  more  than  50  per  cent  during  the  decade. 

The  census  figures  which  have  aroused  the  most  interest  are 
those  dealing  with  race  and  color.  They  are  given  in  the  following 
table : 


Table  45. — Population  of  Hawaii,  by  Race,  with  Per   Cent   of 
Increase:  1920  and  1910. 


Total 255,912 


Hawaiian 

Caucasian-Hawaiian . 
Asiatic-Hawaiian. . . . 


23.7^3 
11,072 

6,955 


Caucasian : 

Portuguese 27,002 

Porto  Rican 5 ,  602 

Spanish I  2 ,  430 

Other  Caucasian j  19, 708 


Chinese I      23 ,  507 

Japanese |     109,274 

4,950 


Korean . 


Filipino . 
Negro.  ..  . 
All  other . 


2 1 ,  03 1 
348 
310 


191,909 


26,041 

8,772 
3,734 


22,301 
4,890 
1,990 

14,867 

21,674 

79-675 

4,533 

2,361 

695 
376 


PER  CENT  OF  TOTAI,. 


Per  cent  of 
increase 
or  de- 
crease (—). 


33-4 


9-3 
4-3 

2.7 


10.6 
2.2 
i.o 
7-7 


9 

42. 

1, 


13.6 
4.6 
1.9 


II. 6 

2-5 

1.0 

7-7 

"•3 
41-5 
2.4 
1.3 
0.4 
0.2 


-».9 
26.2 
86.3 


14.6 
22. 1 
32.6 

8.5 

37-1 

9.2 

790.8 

-49.9 

—  17.6 


The  racial  classification  is  rendered  somewhat  complex  by  the 
number  of  intermarriages  between  natives  and  immigrants.  The 
native  and  mixed  native  and  foreign  groups  are  as  follows:  Ha- 
waiian, pure  native  stock;  Caucasian-Hawaiian,  a  mixture  of 
Caucasian  and  Hawaiian  stock,  largely  a  development  from  the 


OUTLYING  POSSESSIONS. 


175 


Spanish  settlement  of  the  island;  and  Asiatic-Hawaiian,  repre- 
senting a  mixture  of  Asiatic  and  Hawaiian  stock. 

The  large  proportion  of  Japanese  and  relatively  small  number 
of  Caucasians,  other  than  Portuguese,  are  significant.  Of  the 
19,708  persons  classed  as  ''Other  Caucasians" — of  which  num- 
ber nearly  11,000  were  born  in  continental  United  States — 
12,670,  or  approximately  two-thirds,  were  located  in  the  city  of 
Honolulu  alone. 

Of  the  actual  increase  among  the  Japanese,  8,000  were  males 
and  22,000  were  females.  The  men  are  employed  mainly  in 
agriculture,  while  the  women  are  employed  either  on  sugar  farms 
or  as  domestic  and  personal  servants.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
nearly  85  per  cent  of  the  foreign  bom  enumerated  at  the 
1920  census  who  had  immigrated  within  the  preceding  10  years 
were  Japanese. 

Because  of  the  widespread  discussion  in  continental  United 
States  concerning  the  number  of  Japanese  in  the  states  and  the 
limitation  of  the  number  migrating  to  this  country,  secured  by 
agreement  with  Japan,  comparison  with  the  unrestricted  migra- 
tion of  Japanese  to  Hawaii  is  of  much  interest.  Here  are  the 
changes  which  have  occurred  in  the  number  of  persons  of  this 
race  in  continental  United  States  and  in  Hawaii :  ^ 


1880 
1890 
1900 
1910 
1920 


Hawaii. 


86 
12, 360 
61,  III 

79.  67s 
109,  274 


The  figures  for  Hawaii  for  1880  and  1890,  as  shown  in  the  above 
table,  are  taken  from  reports  published  by  the  then  Hawaiian  Gov- 
ernment. (It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Hawaiian  Islands  did 
not  become  a  territory  of  the  United  States  until  1898,  and  ap- 
peared for  the  first  time  in  the  reports  of  the  census  of  1900  as  a 
part  of  this  country.) 

Obviously  the  Japanese  were  not  attracted  either  to  Hawaii, 
then  an  independent  kingdom,  or  to  the  United  States  as  early 

'  The  figures  in  this  statement  include  the  American-bom  (or  Hawaiian-bom) 
descendants  of  Japanese  immigrants,  in  addition  to  the  immigrants  themselves. 


176  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

as  1880.  But  by  1890  Hawaii  had  apparently  been  discovered 
as  a  desirable  country  to  which  to  emigrate,  and  in  that  year  also 
the  first  suggestions  of  emigration  to  the  United  States  appeared. 
During  the  following  decade  occurred  the  heaviest  movement  of 
Japanese  to  Hawaii,  together  with  a  marked  increase  in  the 
number  coming  to  the  United  States. 

Thereafter  appears  a  rather  interesting  equalization  of  numbers. 
Immigration  of  Japanese  to  Hawaii  slackened  from  1900  to  19 10, 
the  increase  in  Japanese  population  for  the  10  years  amounting  to 
less  than  20,000,  as  against  nearly  50,000  for  the  preceding  decade ; 
but  the  number  coming  to  this  country  was  so  great  that  the 
total  Japanese  population  of  continental  United  States  in  19 10 
tended  to  approach  the  number  in  the  territory  of  Hawaii.  In 
1920  the  increase  shown  for  continental  United  States  was  con- 
siderably greater  than  for  Hawaii,  and  for  the  first  time  the 
number  of  Japanese  in  continental  United  States  slightly  exceeded 
that  in  the  island  territory. 

PORTO    RICO. 

The  island  of  Porto  Rico  was  formally  surrendered  by  Spain  in 
October,  1898,  and  was  ceded  to  the  United  States  by  the  treaty 
of  Paris,  signed  December  10  of  the  same  year. 

The  population  of  Porto  Rico,  as  recorded  by  the  census  of  1910, 
was  1,118,012.  This  number  increased  during  the  decade  from 
1910  to  1920  by  16.3  per  cent,  resulting  in  a  total  of  1,299,809  in- 
habitants at  the  taking  of  the  1920  census.  The  average  number 
of  inhabitants  per  square  mile  in  1920  was  378.4,  as  compared  with 
325.5  in  1 910  and  277.5  i^  1899.  This  represents  a  density  10 
times  as  great  as  that  for  continental  United  States. 

The  decade  has  shown  a  slight  increase  in  the  proportion 
of  urban  population.  In  1920  the  urban  population,  according 
to  the  customary  census  classification,  constituted  21.8  per  cent 
of  the  total  population,  as  compared  with  20.1  per  cent  in  19 10. 
There  were,  in  1920,  16  cities  or  towns  having  more  than  5,000 
inhabitants,  the  largest  being  San  Juan  and  Ponce.  San  Juan  had 
71,443  inhabitants  in  1920,  having  increased  about  50  per  cent 
during  the  decade.  Ponce,  with  a  population  of  41,912,  had 
increased  but  19  per  cent. 

The  following  table  indicates  the  racial  distribution.  The 
Census  Bureau  classes  as  native  all  those  bom  in  continental 
United  States  or  any  of  its  outlying  possessions.  It  is  interesting 
to  note  how  nearly  completely  the  population  is  made  up  of 
natives. 


OUTLYING  POSSESSIONS. 


177 


Tabi,e  46. — Population  of  Porto  Rico,  by  Coi,or  or  Race  and 
Nativity:  1920  and  19 id. 


KUMBER. 

PBR  C8NT  OP  TOTAL. 

1920 

1910 

1920 

1910 

Total 

1,299,809 

I, 118,012 

100. 0 

100. 0 

White 

Black 

948,709 

49,246 

301,816 

32 

4 
2 

1,291,642 
8,167 

732,555 

50,245 

335.192 

12 

8 

73-0 

3-8 

23.2 

(') 

99.4 
0.6 

65-5 

4-5 

30.0 

(') 

Mulatto 

Chinese 

Japanese 

All  other 

Native 

I, 106,246 
I I , 766 

98.9 
I .  I 

Foreign  bom 

'  Less  than  one-tenth  of  i  per  cent. 

Since  the  number  of  foreign  bom  is  so  slight,  and  since  99.8 
per  cent  of  the  natives  were  actually  born  on  the  island,  it  would 
appear  that  the  increase  is  almost  entirely  internal — that  is,  due 
to  excess  of  births  over  deaths.  The  experience  of  Porto  Rico  is 
especially  interesting  because  of  the  unusual  density  of  popula- 
tion, and  of  the  fact  that  the  island  is  self-supporting. 

Some  geographic  concentration  by  race  can  be  observed,  the 
blacks  and  mulattoes  being  found  mainly  in  the  northern  and 
eastern  parts  of  the  island,  about  San  Juan.  The  decrease  in 
both  these  groups,  as  compared  with  the  increase  in  the  white 
population,  is  very  marked. 

GUAM. 

Guam  is  the  largest  and  southernmost  island  of  the  North 
Pacific  group  known  as  the  Marianne  or  Marianas  Islands.  It 
is  located  5,053  nautical  miles  southwest  of  San  Francisco,  3,337 
nautical  miles  west  by  south  of  Honolulu,  and  i  ,506  nautical  miles 
east  of  Manila.  The  island  is  about  30  miles  in  extreme  length 
and  from  4  to  8^  miles  in  width,  its  estimated  area  being  225 
square  miles.  On  December  10,  1898,  Guam  was  ceded  to  the 
United  States  by  Spain. 

Table  47. — Population  of  Guam,  by  Color  or  Race:  1920. 


COLOR  OR  RACE. 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

COLOR   OR   RACE. 

Number. 

Percent 
of  total. 

All  races 

13.275 

100. 0 

Japanese 

2IO 

74 
42 
38 
29 

1.6 

0.6 

0-3 
0. 2 

Chamorro 

12,216               92.0 
396                 3.0 
280                2 . r 

Mixed 

Filipino 

Black 

White 

Not  reported 

0.2 

107°— 22- 


-12 


178 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


The  island  of  Guam  has  little  attraction  for  population,  its 
importance  centering  about  the  naval  station  there  located.  In 
1920  the  total  population  was  13,275,  an  increase  of  1,469,  or  12.4 
per  cent,  over  the  number  enumerated  in  1910.  This  1920  figure 
is  lower  than  had  been  forecast  by  the  early  years  of  the  decade, 
because  of  an  epidemic  of  influenza  which  swept  the  island  in 
October  and  November  of  1918.  In  those  two  months  there  were 
858  deaths,  and  the  death  rate  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30, 
1 91 9,  was  72.3  per  1,000  of  population. 

The  population  is  made  up  mainly  of  natives,  called  Chamorros, 
a  hybrid  race  with  the  Malayan  strain  predominating. 

AMERICAN   SAMOA. 

American  Samoa  comprises  six  islands,  namely,  Rose,  Manua, 
Olosega,  Ofu,  Tutuila,  and  Aunuu.  Tutuila,  the  largest  and  most 
important  of  these  islands,  lies  4,160  nautical  miles  southwest 
from  San  Francisco,  2,263  nautical  miles  south-southwest  from 
Honolulu,  and  2,354  nautical  miles  northwest  from  Sidney, 
Australia.  The  United  States  took  formal  possession  of  American 
Samoa  February  19,  1900. 

Table  48. — Population  of  American  Samoa,  by  Race:  1920. 


KACE. 

N-ber.          P--' 

RACE. 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

All  races 

Polynesian 

8,056 

100.  0 

Mixed 

Whitp 

233 
>6 

2.  q 
0.  I 

7.776 

965      ' 

Another 

'  Comprises  3  Japanese,  i  Chinese,  and  2  Negroes. 

Prior  enumerations  made  by  the  governor  of  the  islands  since 
the  United  States  took  possession  recorded  a  population  of  5,679 
in  1900,  5,563  in  1901,  5,888  in  1903,  6,780  in  1908,  7,251  in  1912, 
and  7,550  in  1916. 

The  population  of  American  Samoa  consists  almost  entirely 
of  native  Polynesians.  The  few  inhabitants  of  mixed  blood  are 
for  the  most  part  the  children  of  white  fathers  and  Polynesian 
mothers. 

PANAMA   CANAL   ZONE. 

The  Panama  Canal  Zone  was  acquired  by  the  United  States 
November  18,  1903,  by  treaty  with  the  Republic  of  Panama.     In 


OUTLYING  POSSESSIONS. 


179 


accordance  with  the  terms  of  this  treaty,  Panama  granted  to  the 
United  States  "in  perpetuity  the  use,  occupation,  and  control  of 
a  zone  of  land  and  land  under  water"  of  the  width  of  lo  miles  for 
"the  construction,  maintenance,  operation,  sanitation,  and  pro- 
tection" of  a  ship  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  The 
cities  and  harbors  of  Panama  and  Colon,  which  are  included 
within  the  boundaries  of  this  zone,  were,  however,  expressly 
excluded  from  the  grant. 

In  the  period  between  1903  and  1920  a  number  of  censuses  were 
taken  under  the  supervision  of  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission, 
the  sanitary  department,  and  the  police.  The  census  of  1920  was 
the  first  Federal  decennial  census  at  which  the  Canal  Zone  was 
enumerated. 

In  1904  the  first  census  taken  by  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission 
indicated  a  population  of  approximately  10,000.  In  191 2  this  had 
increased  to  60,000,  the  increase  consisting  mainly  of  laborers 
working  on  the  canal  construction.  The  first  Federal  census,  that 
of  1920,  recorded  a  population  of  22,858  persons.  That  there  has 
been  such  a  wide  fluctuation  is  by  no  means  strange.  In  the 
first  place,  the  number  of  persons  employed  in  the  construction 
of  the  canal  has  varied  widely  between  these  dates.  In  the  second 
place,  there  was  a  considerable  decrease  in  1 9 1 2  due  to  an  Execu- 
tive order,  known  as  the  depopulation  order,  which  demanded  the 
departure  of  native  landowners  and  squatters,  either  into  the  two 
cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  or  to  points  outside  the  Canal  Zone. 


Table;  49. — Population  of  Panama  Canal  Zone,  by  Color  or  Race 

AND  Nativity:  1920. 


COLOR   OR   RACE    AND  NATTVITV. 


Total  population 

White 

Negro 

Other  colored 

Native  white 

Native  parentage 

Foreign  or  mixed  parentage . . . 

Foreign-bom  white 

Native  Negro 

Foreign-bom  Negro 


22,858 


12,370 

10,429 

59 

10.753 
7.734 
3.019 

1,617 

2,757 
7,672 


17.964 


7-711 

10,207 

46 

6,660 

4.771 
1,889 

1,051 

2,719 
7,488 


MILITARY  AND 
NAVAL. 


4.894 


4,659 

222 

13 

4.093 
2,963 
1,130 

566 

38 
184 


XVI. 
SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION. 

The  greatest  of  all  wars  will  make  the  lo  years  from  1 910  to  1920 
conspicuous  among  all  census  periods.  The  conflict  itself  and  the 
suspense  and  uncertainty  which  were  finally  terminated  by  the 
Versailles  treaty  together  extended  from  i9i4to  1919.  Therefore, 
normal  influences,  such  as  existed,  were  massed  at  the  beginning 
of  the  decade,  but  even  in  neutral  lands  had  been  largely  swept 
away  by  the  close  of  this  period.  In  consequence,  almost  all  the 
population  changes  shown  by  the  Fourteenth  Census  reflected  the 
influences  of  the  Great  War. 

Although  the  period  of  active  warfare  by  the  United  States  was 
extremely  short,  in  an  economic  sense  participation  in  the  conflict 
began  in  the  early  part  of  1915.  Entirely  commercial,  it  was 
nevertheless  very  real,  but  it  differed  from  the  war  activities  of 
the  militant  nations  in  that  supplies  and  munitions  furnished  from 
America  were  purchased  and  paid  for  by  European  countries 
unable  to  manufacture  in  sufficient  volume  for  themselves.  But 
the  man  power,  which  in  other  nations  was  of  necessity  divided 
between  armies  and  factories,  in  the  United  States  was  concen- 
trated, so  far  as  unusual  opportunities  for  profit  accomplished 
that  end,  upon  specialized  manufactures  and  agriculture. 

The  Fourteenth  Census  was  taken  a  little  more  than  a  year  after 
the  armistice  was  declared.  Evidences  were  still  present  on  all 
sides  of  the  vast  economic  readjustment  and  effort  which  this 
Nation  had  made,  first,  to  fill  the  orders  of  belligerents  for  muni- 
tions and  supplies,  and  second,  to  concentrate  the  entire  resources 
of  the  country  upon  the  task  of  winning  the  war  after  the  United 
States  had  at  length  entered  the  conflict. 

War  influence  is  seen  at  each  successive  step  of  the  analysis 
which  appears  in  this  volume:  In  reduction  in  the  rate  of  national 
population  increase;  hi  the  changes  which  occurred  in  states, 
counties,  cities,  and  smaller  communities;  and  finally,  in  the  pro- 
nounced readjustments  which  took  place  among  the  different  ele- 
ments of  the  population. 

The  persistent  influence  of  the  war  alone  is  likely  to  make  the 

Fourteenth  Census  conspicuous  among  Federal  censuses,  even  long 

after  it  has  passed  into  history.     There  are,  however,  two  other 

causes  for  prominence.     If  succeeding  censuses  show  a  return  to  a 

180 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION.  181 

more  liberal  percentage  of  increase,  the  census  of  1920  will  be  note- 
worthy for  the  sharp  depression  which  it  showed  in  population 
growth.  On  the  other  hand,  should  the  low  rate  of  increase  con- 
tinue, or  should  the  rate  tend  to  decline  still  further,  then  the 
Fourteenth  Census  will  prove  to  be  noteworthy  as  marking  the  be- 
ginning of  a  distinct  slowing  down  in  national  growth.  Finally,  the 
Fourteenth  Census  records  the  effect  (caused  directly  by  the  war)  of 
an  unsettlement  of  family  relations,  probably  more  widespread 
than  corresponding  changes  during  any  previous  decade  covered  by 
American  census-taking  except  that  of  the  Civil  War.  Millions 
of  able-bodied  men,  a  considerable  proportion  married,  repaired 
for  longer  or  shorter  periods  to  centers  of  industrial  activity  or 
went  to  training  camps  or  abroad  with  the  colors.  The  degree  of 
this  suspension  of  family  relations  can  not  be  measured,  because 
by  1920  many  persons  had  returned  to  their  previous  places  of 
residence  and  were  there  enumerated  as  though  never  absent. 
The  number  thus  long  absent  but  having  returned  must  have 
been  great,  yet  in  spite  of  this  partial  readjustment  the  census 
everywhere  gives  evidence  of  an  unusual  proportion  of  changes  in 
residence.  This  characteristic  of  the  decade  in  the  aggregate 
must  have  been  an  important  factor  in  retarding  population 
increase. 

From  1 910  to  1920  the  population  of  the  United  States  increased 
14,000,000,  a  considerably  smaller  absolute  number  than  that 
sho\^^l  by  the  census  of  1910,  but  larger  than  the  increase  sho\\Ti 
at  any  previous  census.  This  increase  was  contributed  unequally. 
A  dozen  states  were  responsible  for  nearly  t^vo-thirds  of  it,  and 
at  the  opposite  extreme  3  states  returned  a  decrease,  and  9  other 
states  an  increase  of  about  400,000.  As  might  be  expected,  in  view 
of  war  iniluences,  tlie  increase  of  population  in  the  United  States 
from  1 910  to  1920  was  largely  confined  to  the  industrial  states,  and 
within  those  states  to  areas  principally  urban.  For  the  first  time 
in  the  history  of  the  Nation  persons  residing  in  urban  environments 
exceeded  in  number  those  living  in  rural  communities.  The  former 
increased  at  a  rapid  rate,  approximating  25  per  cent;  but  the 
increase  of  the  latter  was  much  slower — a  rate  little  more,  indeed, 
than  5  per  cent. 

In  all  American  census-taking  but  eight  instances  of  decrease  of 
state  population  have  occurred.*    Three  of  these  appeared  at  the 

^  These  eight  decreases  do  not  include  that  showTi  by  Virginia  for  the  decade  iSCc- 
1870,  due  to  the  detachment  of  West  Virginia. 


182  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

census  of  1920.  These  three  states — Nevada,  Vermont,  and 
Mississippi — were  conspicuous  among  those  having  small  urban 
population,  while  the  9  states  which  showed  at  the  census  of 
1920  very  small  increase  were  also  composed  largely  of  rural 
communities. 

This  noteworthy  change  was  emphasized  even  more  strongly  by 
the  counties.  There  are  over  3,000  counties  in  the  United  States. 
Of  this  number,  one-third  declined  in  population.  The  declining 
counties  comprised  over  900,000  square  miles,  or  almost  one-third 
of  the  area  of  the  United  States,  and  contained  19,000,000  people, 
or  more  than  one-sixth  of  the  entire  population.  The  counties 
which  decreased  were  largely  rural,  and  thus  sharply  reflected  the 
tendency  of  the  decade  and  the  effort  of  large  numbers  of  persons 
to  readjust  themselves  to  greater  advantage  during  the  penod  of 
immense  industrial  and  agricultural  activity. 

In  New  York — which,  possessing  a  greater  population  than  any 
other  state  in  the  Union,  affords  an  important  example  of  extreme 
urban  increase  with  contrasting  conditions  in  the  rural  commu- 
nities— New  York  City,  with  more  than  half  the  entire  popula- 
tion, showed  17.9  per  cent  increase,  as  compared  with  9.6  per  cent 
for  the  remainder  of  the  state.  The  latter  increase  in  turn  was 
practically  all  contributed  by  21  cities  of  25,000  or  more.  Three- 
fourths,  indeed,  of  the  1,000  minor  civil  di\'isions  of  the  state  of 
New  York  lost  population  during  the  decade. 

When  the  increase  of  population  at  the  Fourteenth  Census  is 
considered  by  nativity  and  color  it  appears  that  the  whites  in- 
creased by  more  than  13,000,000  and  the  Negroes  by  less  than 
700,000.  The  white  increase  was  thus  16  per  cent  and  the 
Negro  but  6.5  per  cent,  marked  decreases  in  the  percentages  for 
both  elements.  The  whites  of  native  parentage,  in  the  13,000,000 
increase,  numbered  about  9,000,000;  and  this  number  in  turn 
was  composed  of  two  elements,  the  equivalent  of  those  derived 
from  the  original  or  native  stock  and  those  native  bom  of  native 
parents  descended  from  persons  who  immigrated  after  1 790  but  at 
dates  sufficiently  early  to  permit  the  existence  of  grandchildren 
bom  in  this  country.  Computations  by  census  experts  seem  to 
indicate  the  equivalent  of  about  47,000,000  persons  as  descended 
from  the  original  or  native  stock.  (The  term  "equivalent"  is 
necessarily  employed,  because  persons  of  absolutely  pure  native 
ancestry — that  is,  persons  having  no  foreign-boni  ancestors  who 
came  to  this  country  subsequently  to  1790 — represented  a  much 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION.  183 

smaller  number,  so  interwoven  have  the  native  and  foreign'  ele- 
ments become  during  the  passage  of  more  than  a  century.) 

The  importance  of  this  computation  as  to  the  present  theoretical 
strength  of  the  descendants  of  the  original  stock  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  it  appears  to  be  evident  that  this  blood  strain  in  the  popu- 
lation is  not  disappearing,  but  is  increasing  at  a  reasonable  and 
rather  normal  rate,  ranging  somewhere  between  lo  and  12  per 
cent,  an  increase  contributed  by  different  parts  of  the  country  in 
widely  varying  percentages. 

The  native  element  migrated  to  the  cities  much  more  generally 
during  the  last  decade  than  in  previous  decades.  In  the  past 
this  element  has  been  found  in  much  larger  proportion  in  rural 
than  in  urban  communities,  but  at  the  census  of  1920  the 
proportions  showed  a  marked  change,  since  in  almost  all  of  the 
large  cities  native  whites  of  native  parentage  manifested  a  decided 
tendency  to  increase.  This  change  may  prove  to  have  been  merely 
an  evidence  of  the  readjustments  forced  by  war  conditions,  but 
it  is  likely  to  persist  at  the  next  census. 

The  increase  in  foreign  bom  shown  at  the  Fourteenth  Census 
was  extremely  small.  Analysis  of  the  changes  which  occurred  in 
the  foreign  element  make  it  evident  that,  obedient  also  to  the  con- 
ditions prevailing  during  the  decade,  large  numbers  of  foreigners 
left  the  United  States  in  response  to  calls  to  the  colors  from  their 
native  lands.  Those  who  departed  were  largely  residents  of  cities, 
so  that  those  who  entered  the  United  States  and  remained  in  the 
cities  were  not  sufhcient  in  number  in  many  cases  to  make  good  the 
losses.  The  demand  thus  occasioned  for  labor  attracted  to  the 
cities  many  of  the  native  element,  and  accounts  for  the  readjust- 
ments already  referred  to  which  occurred  in  connection  with  that 
great  body  of  the  population. 

The  percentage  of  increase  in  the  number  of  Negroes  was  much 
less  than  that  shov\'ii  at  any  previous  census.  It  is  necessary, 
indeed,  to  go  back  80  years — to  the  census  of  1840 — to  find  an 
absolute  decennial  increase  in  the  Negro  population  less  than  that 
shown  in  1920.  As  in  the  past  (since  18 10),  this  increase  was 
derived  almost  exclusively  from  births.  Among  the  colored  popu- 
lation a  remarkable  movement  was  in  progress  during  the  decade. 
This  also  was  the  result  of  war  conditions.  The  Negroes  are 
essentially  a  rural  element.  Such  increase  of  tlie  Negro  race  as 
is  shown  by  the  census  comes  exclusively  from  the  rural  districts, 
but  the  call  of  the  cities  during  the  war  period  for  additional 
labor,  skilled  and  unskilled,  proved  an  irresistible  attraction  to 


184  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

many  Negroes  in  the  Southern  states,  and  large  numbers  of  them, 
beginning  in  191 5,  drifted  toward  the  northern  and  western  cities, 
and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  toward  southern  cities  also.  Two  dis- 
tinct changes  were  thus  brought  about  by  the  Negro  migrants: 
They  shifted  a  considerable  percentage  of  their  numbers  from 
rural  to  urban  communities,  and  they  removed  many  of  their  race 
from  that  environment  in  which  their  number  tended  to  increase 
to  a  new  environment  in  which  they  were  not  reproductive.  It 
is  probable  that  some  readjustments,  both  as  to  residence  and  as  to 
increase,  began  to  occur  shortly  after  the  close  of  the  decade  under 
consideration,  in  which  event  the  percentage  of  increase  for  the 
Negroes  at  the  next  census  may  show  some  improvement. 
Whether  the  urban  tendency  of  the  Negro  race  has  been  checked 
by  the  return  to  normal  conditions  probably  depends  on  the  de- 
mand for  unskilled  labor,  governed  in  large  measure  by  immigra- 
tion legislation. 

From  this  brief  summary  of  the  changes  revealed  by  analysis 
of  the  Fourteenth  Census  returns,  the  direct  or  indirect  influence 
of  the  war  is  apparent.  In  total  population,  in  the  readjust- 
ments of  the  native  white  population,  in  the  decreased  proportion 
of  foreigners,  and  in  the  greatly  reduced  increase  and  the  read- 
justments of  the  Negro  population,  the  economic  conditions  which 
controlled  the  decade  are  clearly  evident. 

Because  of  the  influence  of  the  war,  many  of  the  tendencies 
which  proved  of  statistical  importance  in  1920  may  not  continue, 
but  when  the  returns  of  the  next  census  are  available  for  com- 
parison, may  turn  out  to  have  been  merely  temporary  conditions, 
readjusted  as  the  Nation  began  to  swing  again  into  the  paths 
of  peace. 

Yet,  withal,  it  is  difficult  to  point  to  a  decade  of  more  absorb- 
ing interest  statistically  than  that  of  1 910  to  1920.  The  analysis 
of  Fourteenth  Census  returns  presented  in  these  pages  passed 
quickly  into  an  atmosphere  of  impressive  changes.  It  dealt  with 
population  massing  on  a  vast  scale,  with  decrease  in  a  thousand 
counties  and  in  many  thousand  rural  communities  in  order  to 
increase  population  in  areas  more  directly  concerned  with  the 
great  task  which  confronted  the  Republic.  The  detailed  infor- 
mation now  so  accurately  secured  by  the  Federal  census  makes 
it  possible  to  say  in  a  very  real  sense  that  the  social  and  industrial 
history  of  the  United  States  during  the  war  decade  was  written 
in  the  returns  of  the  Fourteenth  Census. 


APPENDIXES 

185 


Appendix  A, 
ESTIMATES  OF  THE  NATIVE  WHITE  STOCK: 

1900,  I9IO,  AND  1920. 

The  numerical  equivalents  of  the  native  white  stock  and  the  foreign 
"wdiite  stock  which  together  constituted  the  white  population  of  the 
United  States  in  1900,  19 10,  and  1920,  estimated  as  explained  herein, 
together  with  the  proportions  which  the  two  kinds  of  stock  formed  of  the 
total  white  population,  were  as  follows: 


Total  -white 
population. 

NATIVE  WHITE   STOCK. 

FOREIGN   WHITE   STOCK. 

CBKSUS  YBAR. 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total 
white. 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total 
white. 

1000 

66,809, 196 

81.731.957 
94,820,915 

37,290,000 
42,420,000 
47,330,000 

55-8 

519 
49.9 

29,520,000 

39,310,000 
47,490,000 

44.a 
48.1 
50.1 

lOIO 

1020 

The  estimates  for  the  native  white  stock  also  represent  the  numbers  of 
white  persons  who  presumably  would  have  been  living  in  the  United 
States  in  the  years  specified  if  there  had  been  no  immigration  nor  emigra- 
tion since  1 790  and  if  the  rates  of  increase  for  the  white  population  had 
been  the  same  as  the  rates  representing  the  natural  increase,  due  to  excess 
of  births  over  deaths,  which  took  place  in  the  white  population  as  it  ac- 
tually existed. 

DEFINITION   OF    "NATIVE  WHITE   STOCK." 

The  term  "native  white  stock"  as  here  used  refers  to  white  persons  who 
were  living  within  any  area  now  a  part  of  continental  United  States  at 
the  time  that  area  was  first  enumerated,  and  to  the  descendants  of  such 
persons.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  native  white  stock  is  descended 
from  persons  enumerated  in  1 790  in  the  New  England  states,  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Caro- 
lina, South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee;  but  a  small  pro- 
portion is  made  up  of  persons  whose  ancestors  were  living,  or  who  were 
themselves  living,  in  other  areas  when  those  areas  were  first  enumerated. 
The  original  populations  of  such  new  areas,  however,  were  very  sparse. 
Moreover,  the  inhabitants  of  these  added  areas  consisted  in  part  of 
migrants  from  the  original  area  of  the  United  States,  or  the  descendants 
of  such  migrants,  so  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  estimate  separately 
the  French  and  Spanish  stock.  It  has  been  necessary,  therefore,  to 
define  native  white  stock  as  explained  above,  with  no  further  subdivision. 

It  would,  of  course,  be  utterly  impossible  to  determine  the  number  of 
white  persons  enumerated  in  1920  or  any  other  recent  census  year  who 

iSr 


188  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

were  of  absolutely  pure  native  stock — that  is,  all  of  whose  foreign -born 
ancestors  came  to  this  country  prior  to  1790.  A  very  considerable  but 
indeterminable  number  of  persons  classed  by  the  census  as  native  v/hites 
of  native  parentage  are  of  mixed  native  and  foreign  stock.  These  per- 
sons would  not  have  existed  had  there  been  no  immigration,  but  in  their 
place  there  would  have  existed  a  smaller  number  of  persons  representing 
approximately  the  same  amount  of  native  stock  unmixed  with  foreign 
blood.  For  example,  if  each  of  four  natives  of  native  parentage  had  one 
foreign-bom  grandparent  and  three  grandparents  of  pure  native  ances- 
try, the  four  persons  together  would  represent  the  same  amount  of  native 
stock  as  would  exist  in  three  persons  of  pure  native  ancestry.  All 
that  can  be  estimated,  therefore,  is  the  numerical  equivalent  of  the 
ainount  of  native  white  stock  in  the  country,  stated  in  terms  of  units  repre- 
senting the  amount  of  native  white  stock  in  one  person  of  pure  native 
white  ancestry.  The  actual  number  of  persons  whose  native  blood  is 
included  in  this  total  is,  of  course,  much  larger,  inasmuch  as  any  person 
who  had  at  least  one  white  ancestor  enumerated  in  1 790  has  in  his  veins 
some  native  white  blood.  For  example,  it  is  possible  that  not  more  than, 
say,  20,000,000  persons  in  this  country  are  of  absolutely  pure  native  white 
stock,  while  the  remaining  27,000,000  of  the  total  of  47,000,000  estimated 
as  the  numerical  equivalent  of  the  native  white  stock  might  be  made  up 
of  varying  proportions  of  native  stock  in  45,000,000  persons  (native 
whites  of  native  parentage  or  of  mixed  native  and  foreign  parentage). 
Moreover,  it  would  be  theoretically  possible  for  every  native  white  person 
of  native  parentage  in  the  United  States  in  1920  to  be  of  mixed  native 
and  foreign  stock. 

BASIC    DATA. 

In  making  these  estimates  the  following  data  were  employed : 

(i)  Foreign  stock,  roughly  estimated  at  ^00,000,  included  in  native  white 
poj?iilation  of  native  parentage  in  1853. — The  number  of  foreign-bom 
v/hite  enumerated  in  1850  was  2,240,535.  In  the  Compendium  of  the 
Seventh  Census  (1850)  the  number  of  the  foreign  bom  and  the  progeny  of 
foreigners  arriving  after  1790  was  estimated  at  3,000,000  or  3,200,000  in 
1853.^     On  the  basis  of  this  approximation  (made  at  a  time  when  a  reason- 

^  ' '  Estimating  the  survivors  in  1850  of  the  foreigners  who  had  arrived  in  the  United 
Statessince  the  census  of  1790  upon  the  principle  of  the  English  life  tables,  and  making 
the  necessary  allowances  for  the  less  proportion  of  the  old  and  very  young  among 
them,  andforreemigration,  etc.,  theirnumber  is  stated  in  the  abstract  of  the  census 
published  in  1853,  p.  15,  at  2,460,000.  From  this,  a  deduction  is  then  made  of  10  per 
cent,  on  account  of  the  greater  mortality  of  emigrants  and  their  lower  expectation  of 
life,  which  brings  the  actual  survivors  very  nearly  to  the  figiires  of  the  census.  The 
deduction  of  10  per  cent  seems  hardly  sufhcicnt  and  does  not  accord  with  tlie  deduc- 
tions that  are  generally  made  in  the  reasoningsof  vital  statisticians.  It  would  be  safer 
to  assume  15  per  cent  than  10,  which  would  reduce  the  survivors  to  a  little  more  thim 
2.000,000.  To  this  add  50  per  cent  for  the  living  descendants  of  foreigners  who  have 
come  into  the  country'  since  1790  (observing  that  nearly  four-fiftlis  of  the  number  have 
arrived  since  1830,  and  could  not  have  both  children  and  grandchildren  bom  in  the 
country,  and  more  than  half  have  arrived  since  1840  and  must  have  had  comp:iratively 
few  native  bom  children,  it  would  not  be  safe  to  add  any  more),  and  tlic  number  of 
foreigners  and  their  descendants  in  1853  is  not  likely  to  exceed  3,000,000  or  3,300,000." 
Compendium  of  the  Seventh  Census,  p.  119. 


ESTIMATES  OF  NATIVE  WHITE  STOCK.  189 

able  approximation  should  have  been  possible) ,  the  descendants  of  white 
immigrants  arriving  subsequently  to  1790  and  prior  to  1853  must  have 
numbered  about  1,000,000  in  the  latter  year.  Since  the  majority  of  the 
immigrants  prior  to  1850  had  arrived  in  this  country  during  the  decade 
1 840- 1 850,  it  is  practically  certain  that  not  more  than  one-half  of  this 
number  were  native  whites  of  native  parentage,  that  is  to  say,  were 
grandchildren  of  immigrants.  The  remaining  500,000,  consisting  of 
native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage,  were,  in  the  main,  very  young 
and  therefore  presumably  did  not  contribute  to  any  great  extent  to  the 
native  white  population  of  native  parentage  prior  to  1870.  The  survivors 
of  these  500,000  native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage  were,  of 
course,  included  in  the  native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage  in 
1870  (infra).  The  omission  of  the  contribution  of  this  group  to  the  native 
whites  of  native  parentage  prior  to  1870  is  probably  approximately 
counterbalanced  by  the  liberality  of  the  estimate  of  500,000  as  the  con- 
tribution by  the  immigrants  to  the  native  whites  of  native  parentage 
prior  to  1853.^ 

(2)  Native  whites  of  foreign  of  mixed  parentage,  1870,  equivalent  to 
4,745,683  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage. — ^This  number  is  made  up  of 
4,167,098  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage  and  one-half  of  the  1,157,170 
native  whites  of  mixed  native  and  foreign  parentage  and  represents  the 
amount  of  foreign  white  stock  in  the  first  group  plus  the  foreign  white 
stock  derived  from  the  foreign  parents  of  the  second  group.  (The  native 
parents  of  the  second  group  who  were  wholly  or  in  part  of  foreign  stock 
are  assumed  to  have  been  included  in  the  500,000  native  whites  of  native 
parentage  in  1853  who  were  descended  from  immigrants  arriving  subse- 
quently to  1790.) 

(3)  Foreign-born  white  persons  enutnerated  in  i8jo,  5,493,712. 

(4)  Excess  of  white  immigration  over  white  emigration  ^  from  1870  to 
1920,  as  follows — 

1871-1880 2,395,000 

188 1— 1890 4, 192 ,000 

1891-1900 3 ,  143 ,  000 

1901-1910 5,365,000 

19 1 1— 1920 ^  3,600,000 

(The  above  figures  have  been  adjusted  so  as  to  make  them  relate  as 
closely  as  possible  to  the  exact  periods  elapsing  between  census  dates.) 

(5)  Total  white  population  in  igoo,  66,809,196,  and  tn  1920,  94,820,915. 

RATES   OF    INCREASE. 

In  estimating  rates  of  natural  increase,  due  to  excess  of  births  over 
deaths,  it  has  been  assumed  that  these  rates  have  been  the  same  for  both 
the  native  and  the  foreign  white  stock. ^     This  assumption  may  at  first 

'  A  Century  of  Population  Growth,  p.  87. 

-  For  method  of  estimating  white  emigration,  see  Appendix  C. 
^  Estimated  net  white  immigration  and  progeny  surviving  on  January  i,  1920. 
*  This  assumption  was  suggested  by  Miss  Elbertie  Foudray,  of  the  division  of  vital 
statistics,  Bureau  of  the  Census,  who  made  a  careful  study  of  the  subject. 


190  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

seem  improbable  and  contrary  to  the  generally  accepted  belief  that  the 
foreign  stock  is  the  more  prolific.  It  is  true  that  in  the  immigrant  families 
in  this  country  the  average  number  of  children  is  larger  than  in  the  native 
families,  but  the  difference  is  probably  less  than  it  is  commonly  believed 
to  be.  A  computation  made  from  the  returns  from  the  birth-registration 
area  in  19 19  yielded  the  following  results,  which  relate  only  to  those 
mothers  who  gave  birth  to  children  during  the  calendar  year  19 19.  The 
birth -registration  area  in  that  year  comprised  22  states  and  the  District 
of  Columbia,  whose  aggregate  population  was  estimated  at  58.6  per  cent 
of  the  total  population  of  the  United  States. 

Number  of  children  ever  bom  per  native  white  mother 3.2 

Number  of  children  ever  bom  per  foreign  white  mother 4.0 

Number  of  surviving  children  per  native  white  mother     2.8 

Number  of  surviving  children  per  foreign  white  mother 3.4 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  birth  rate  for  the  native  white  population 
is  undoubtedly  somewhat  higher  in  the  Southern  states,  of  which  only 
five  were  included  in  the  birth-registration  area  in  19 19,  than  in  the 
remainder  of  the  country,  it  is  almost  certain  that  the  figures  given  above 
show  a  somewhat  greater  difference  between  average  numbers  of  children 
per  native  and  foreign  white  mother  than  would  appear  if  the  figures 
had  been  based  on  returns  for  the  entire  United  States. 

Moreover,  it  appears  from  the  census  reports  that  the  proportions  of 
married  persons  are  considerably  smaller  among  native  whites  of  foreign 
or  mixed  parentage  than  among  native  v^^hites  of  native  parentage. 
This  is  true  not  only  for  the  United  States  as  a  whole  but  for  urban 
and  rural  communities  considered  separately,  so  that  the  explanation 
is  not  to  be  found  wholly  in  the  fact  that  a  much  larger  proportion  of  the 
native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage  than  of  the  native  whites 
of  native  parentage  live  in  urban  communities,  where  the  marriage 
rates  are  lower  than  in  rural  communities. 

Thus,  while  the  birth  rate  among  the  foreign-bom  whites  is  somewhat 
higher  than  among  the  native  whites,  a  factor  opposite  in  effect  is  found 
in  a  lower  marriage  rate  for  the  native  white  population  of  foreign 
parentage  than  for  the  native  whites  of  native  parentage.  As  there  are 
no  statistics  in  regard  to  the  number  of  children  born  to  the  native  whites 
of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage  who  do  marry,  there  is  no  definite  basis 
for  an  assumption  that  the  third  generation  of  tlie  foreign  white  stock 
is  relatively  any  more  numerous  than  the  contemporaneous  generation 
of  the  native  white  stock. 

For  these  reasons  it  is  believed  that  the  most  logical  and  defensible 
method  of  estimating  the  native  and  foreign  white  stock  is  that  based 
on  the  assumption  that  their  rates  of  natural  increase  are  the  same, 
considering  not  only  the  first  but  subsequent  generations.  (See  Appen- 
dix B  for  expansion  of  discussion.) 


ESTIMATES  OF  NATIVE  WHITE  STOCK.  191 

In  calculating  these  rates  the  net  white  immigration  during  each 
decade  is  assumed  to  have  been  distributed  uniformly  throughout  the 
decade,  so  that  the  average  length  of  time  elapsing  between  arrival  in 
the  United  States  and  the  end  of  the  decade  was  five  years.  Thus  the 
natural  increase  among  the  immigrants  arriving  during  a  given  decade 
would  be  equal  to  one-half  the  natural  increase  among  the  same  number  of 
persons  present  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade;  that  is  to  say,  one-half 
the  decennial  rate  for  the  white  population  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade 
could  be  applied  to  the  net  white  immigration  as  a  whole,  or  the  entire 
decennial  rate  could  be  applied  to  one-half  the  net  white  immigration. 
Hence  the  total  natural  increase — in  other  words,  the  total  increase  less 
the  net  white  immigration — represents  a  rate  based  on  the  total  white 
population  enumerated  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade  plus  one-half  the 
net  white  immigration  arriving  during  the  decade.  This  rate  can 
therefore  be  easily  calculated  by  the  following  method: 

Deduct  net  white  immigration  during  decade  from  total  numerical 
increase  in  white  population  and  divide  remainder  by  white  population 
enumerated  at  beginning  of  decade  plus  one-half  net  white  immigration. 
(For  a  description  of  the  method  employed  in  estimating  net  immigra- 
tion, see  Appendix  C.) 

To  illustrate :  The  numerical  increase  in  the  white  population  between 
i8go  and  1900  was  11,707,938.  Deducting  the  net  white  immigration 
during  the  decade,  3,143,000,  from  this  increase  leaves  8,564,938  as  the 
increment  due  to  natural  increase  in  the  population  enumerated  at  the 
beginning  of  the  decade  and  in  the  immigrant  population  arriving  during 
the  decade.  The  white  population  enumerated  in  1890  was  55,101,258. 
Adding  to  this  number  one-half  the  net  white  immigration  gives  a  total 
of  56,672,758  as  the  base  on  which  to  compute  the  percentage  of  increase; 
and  the  division  of  this  number  into  the  8,564,938  representing  the 
natural  increase  gives  a  rate  of  15. i  per  cent. 

Thus  computed,  the  rates  of  natural  increase  in  the  white  population 
during  the  10  decades  from  1820  to  1920  were  as  follows: 

Per  cent. 

1820-1830 31-9 

1830-1840 28.  7 

1840-1850 25. 1 

185O-1860 22.8 

I860-I870 1  18.3 

I870-I880 '  18.8 

I880-I800 16.5 

I890-I900 15. 1 

1000-19 10 13.8 

1910-1920 ^11.6 

'  Estimated  corrected  total  for  white  population  in  1870  used  in  computing  rates 
for  1860-1870  and  1870-1880. 

2  Calculated  as  explained  in  Appendix  C. 


192  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

The  rates  of  natural  increase  for  the  several  foreign-white-stock  groups 
under  consideration,  to  1900  and  to  1920,  have  been  calculated  as  follows, 
the  result  in  each  case  representing  i  plus  the  rate: 

White  pofnclaiion  derived  in  igoo  and  ig20  from  native  whites  of  native 
parentage  in  1833  representing  foreign  stock. — The  increase  in  this  group 
for  the  period  1 853-1 860  is  assumed  to  have  been  seven- tenths  of  the 
increase  for  the  entire  decade.  The  rate  of  increase  during  this  7-year 
period  would  therefore  be  seven- tenths  of  22.8,  or  16  per  cent;  i  plus 
the  rate  for  the  period  185 3-1 900  would  be  1.16X  1.183X  1.188X  1.165X 
1. 151,  or  2.186;  and  i  plus  the  rate  for  1853-1920  would  be  2.186X 
1.138X  1. 116,  or  2.776. 

White  population  derived  in  1900  and  ig20  from  native  whites  of  foreign 
or  mixed  parentage  in  1870  and  from  foreign-horn  whites  in  1870. — For  the 
period  18  70- 1900,  i  plus  the  rate  of  increase  for  these  groups  would  be 
equal  to  1.188X  1.165X  1.151,  or  1.593;  ^^^  i  plus  the  rate  for  the  period 
1870-1920  would  be  equal  to  1.593X  1.138X  1.116,  or  2.023. 

White  population  derived  in  igoo  and  ig20  from  net  white  immigration 
since  1870 — * 

Net   immigration    during    decade    1870-1880,    to    1900 — 1.094X 

1. 1 65  Xi. 151,  or I.  467 

Net   immigration   during    decade    1 870-1 880,    to    1920 — 1.467X 

1.138X  I.I  16,  or 1.863 

Net  immigration  during  decade   1880-1890,   to   1900 — 1.0825X 

1.151,  or I.  246 

Net  immigration   during   decade    1880-1890,    to    1920 — 1.246X 

1. 138 X  1. 1 1 6,  or I.  582 

Net  immigration  during  decade  1890-1900,  to  1900 i.  0755 

Net  immigration  during  decade    1890-1900,    to    1920 — 1.0755X 

1.138X  1.116,  or I.  366 

Net  immigration   during    decade    1900-1910,   to    1920 — 1.069X 

I.I  16,  or I.  193 

(Survivors  of  net  white  immigration,  and  progeny,  for  decade  19 10- 1920 
have  been  estimated  by  a  different  method,  explained  in  Appendix  C.) 

APPUCATION   OF    RATES   TO    BASIC    DATA. 

White  population  derived  from  native  whites  of  native  parentage  in  1853 
representing  foreign  stock — 

In  1900 — 5cxD,oooX2.i86,  or 1,093,000 

In  1920 — 500,000X2.776,  or 1,388,000 

White  population  derived  from  native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage 
enumerated  in  1870 — 

In  1900 — 4,745,683X1-593.  or 7, 560,000 

In  1920 — 4,745,683X2.023,  or 9,601,000 

White  population  derived  from  foreign-born  white  population  enumerated 
in  1870 — 

In  1900—5,493,712X1.593.  or 8,751,000 

In  1920 — 5,493,712X2.023,  or II,  114,000 

'  As  already  explained,  the  rate  of  natural  increase  applicable  for  a  given  decade  to 
the  immigrants  arriving  during  that  decade  is  assumed  to  be  equal  to  one-half  the  rate 
applicable  to  the  same  number  of  persons  present  in  the  country  at  tlie  bcgiiming  of 
the  decade. 


ESTIMATES  OF  NATIVE  WHITE  STOCK.  193 

White  population  in  i goo  derived  froimiet  white  immigration  since  1870 — 

1870-1880 — 2,395,oooXi.467,  or 3,513,000 

1880-1890 — 4, 192, 000X1.246, or 5,223,000 

1890-1900 — ^3, 143,000X1. 0755, or 3,380,000 

Total 12 , 1 16 ,  000 

White  population  in  ipso  derived  from,  net  white  immigration  since  1920 — 

1870-1880 — 2, 395,000X1. 863, or 4,462,000 

1880-1890 — 4, 192, 000X1.582, or 6,632,000 

1890-1900 — 3, 143,000X1-366,  or 4, 293,000 

1900-1910 — 5, 365, 000X1-193, or 6,400,000 

1910-1920 — survivors  and  progeny  (estimated  as  explained  in 

Appendix  C) 3,600,000 

Total 25,387, 000 

TOTALIZATION   OF    ITEMS. 

Foreign  white  stock,  igoo — 

Survivors  and  progeny  of  native  whites  of  native  parentage, 

1853,  representing  foreign  stock 1,093,000 

Survivors  and  progeny  of  native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed 

parentage  enumerated  in  1870 7 ,  560, 000 

Survivors  and  progeny  of  foreign-bom  whites  enumerated  in 

1870  8,751,000 

Siu-vivors  and  progeny  of  net  white  immigration,  1870  to  1900.  .  12, 116,000 

Total 29,520, 000 

Native  white  stock,  igoo — 

Total  white  population 66, 809 ,  196 

Deduct  foreign  white  stock 29,  520, 000 

Native  white  stock  (in  round  tens  of  thousands) 3  7 ,  290 ,  000 

Foreign  white  stock,  ig2o — - 

Survivors  and  progeny  of  native  whites  of  native  parentage, 

1853,  representing  foreign  stock 1,388,000 

Survivors  and  progeny  of  native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed  par- 
entage enumerated  in  1S70 9,601,000 

Survivors  and  progeny  of  foreign-born  whites  enumerated  in 

1870 II, 114,000 

Survivors  and  progeny  of  net  white  immigration,  1870  to  1920..  25,387, 000 

Total 47 ,  490 ,  000 

Native  white  stock,  ig2o — 

Total  white  population 94,820,915 

Deduct  foreign  white  stock 47 ,  490 ,  000 

Native  white  stock  (in  roimd  tens  of  thousands) 47 ,  330, 000 

107°— 22 13 


194  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

ESTIMATE  FOR  1910. 

The  estimates  for  the  native  white  stock  in  1900  and  1920  having  been 
made,  it  was  possible  to  calculate  the  corresponding  one  for  19 10  in  a  very 
simple  manner,  as  follows : 

The  estimate  for  the  native  white  stock  in  1900,  37,290,000,  was 
multiplied  by  1.138  (i  plus  the  rate  of  natural  increase  in  the  white  popu- 
lation during  the  decade  1900-1910);  the  corresponding  estimate  for 
1920,  47,330,000,  was  divided  by  1.116  (i  plus  the  rate  of  natural  increase 
in  the  white  population  during  the  decade  1910-1920) ;  and  the  two  results, 
42,436,000  and  42,410,000  (the  difference  being  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
percentages  of  increase  were  not  computed  to  a  greater  number  of  decimal 
places),  were  averaged  to  the  nearest  ten  thousand,  giving  42,420,000  as 
the  estimated  native  white  stock  in  1910. 

TEST  BY  ALTERNATIVE  METHOD. 

The  results  obtained  by  the  foregoing  method  have  been  tested  to  some 
extent  by  the  employment  of  an  alternative  method.  Both  the  original 
and  alternative  methods  were  based  upon  the  same  fimdamental  assump- 
tion, namely,  that  the  rates  of  natural  increase  in  the  native  and  the 
foreign  white  stock  are  the  same;  but  the  difference  between  the  two  is 
such  that  the  results  of  the  test  are  of  value  as  indicating  the  substantial 
accuracy  of  the  census  data  as  to  foreign  white  stock  in  1853  and  1870, 
used  in  the  foregoing  calculations. 

The  test  was  made  by  roughly  estimating  the  population  derived  in 
1820  from  white  immigration  between  1790  and  1820,  deducting  this  from 
the  total  white  population  enumerated  in  1820,  and  applying  to  the 
remainder  the  rates  of  natural  increase  from  decade  to  decade,  estimated 
as  already  described.     (See  p.  191.) 

The  immigration  for  the  period  1790  to  1820,  the  first  year  in  which 
the  immigration  was  recorded,  was  estimated  on  the  assumptions  that  it 
had  gradually  increased  from  4,000  in  1790  to  8,000  in  1820;  that  the 
naitural  increase  during  each  decade  in  the  total  white  population  enu- 
merated at  the  beginning  of  the  decade  was  one- third;  and  that  the 
natural  increase  during  each  decade  in  the  families  of  the  immigrants 
arriving  during  that  particular  decade  was  equal  to  one-sixth  of  their 
total  number.  During  the  seven  years  from  1S20  to  1826,  inclusive,  the 
immigration,  beginning  with  8,385,  fluctuated  wathout  showing  any 
pronounced  upward  movement,  but  after  1826  it  increased  much  more 
rapidly,  although  irregularly,  from  year  to  year.  It  seems  probable, 
therefore,  that  there  had  been  no  sharp  increase  during  the  few  years  or 
the  decade  inmiediately  preceding  1820,  but  ratlier  that  there  had  been 
a  slow  and  irregular  increase  between  1790  and  1820.  For  the  purposes 
of  this  calculation,  however,  it  has  been  assumed  tliat  the  increase  was 
steady.     If  the  several  assumptions  above  set  forth  were  substantially 


1890  32 ,410.000 

IQOO  37,300,000 

1910  42,450,000 

1920  47,370,000 


ESTIMATES  OF  NATIVE  WHITE  STOCK.  195 

correct,  the  population  derived  in  1820  from  the  net  white  immigration 
between  1790  and  1820  was  approximately  275,000,  or  2,%  per  cent  of 
the  total  white  population  in  1820.  This  estimate,  of  course,  is  really 
nothing  more  than  a  guess;  but,  in  view  of  the  small  proportion  which 
the  pppulation  derived  from  immigration  since  1790  constituted  of  the 
total  population  in  1820,  the  margin  of  error  is  necessarily  very  small  in 
comparison  with  the  total  native  white  stock. 

The  subtraction  of  the  estimated  275,000  foreign  white  stock  from  the 
total  white  population  enumerated  in  1820,  7,866,797,  leaves  approxi- 
mately 7,590,000  as  the  estimated  native  white  stock  in  that  year;  and 
by  applying  to  this  number,  in  series,  the  estimated  decennial  rates  of 
natural  increase  in  the  white  population  from  1820  to  1920  (see  p.  191) 
there  are  obtained  the  following  estimates  of  the  native  white  stock :  ^ 

1820 7, 590,000  j  1880 27,820,000 

1830 10,010,000 

1840 12,880,000 

1850 16,120,000 

i860 19 , 790 , 000 

1870 23,420,000 

The  differences  between  the  estimates  made  by  the  two  methods  for 
the  years  1900,  1910,  and  1920  are  remarkably  slight.  Of  course,  if  the 
basic  theory,  namely,  that  the  rates  of  natural  increase  have  been  the 
same  for  both  the  native  and  the  foreign  white  stock,  is  erroneous,  the 
error  in  the  results  of  both  sets  of  estimates  would  be  the  same  in  kind 

^  The  following  excerpt  from  the  Abstract  of  the  Seventh  Census,  page  131,  is  of 
interest  in  this  connection: 

'  'According  to  Doctor  Seybert,  an  earlier  writer  upon  statistics,  the  number  of  foreign 
passengers  from  1790  to  1810  was,  as  nearly  as  could  be  ascertained,  120,000;  and 
from  the  estimates  of  Doctor  Seybert  and  other  evidence,  Hon.  George  Tucker, 
author  of  a  valuable  work  on  the  census  of  1840,  supposes  the  number,  from  1810  to 
1820,  to  have  been  114,000.  These  estimates  make,  for  the  30  years  preceding  1820, 
234,000.  If  w^e  reckon  the  increase  of  these  immigrants  at  the  average  rate  of  the 
whole  body  of  white  population  during  these  three  decades,  they  and  their  descend- 
ants, in  1820,  would  amount  to  about  360,000. " 

It  has  been  assumed  that  this  estimate  is  unduly  liberal,  since  it  would  imply  an 
average  annual  immigration,  during  the  30  years  from  1790  to  1820  (which  included 
the  period  of  the  War  of  1812),  slightly  larger  than  the  average  for  the  five  years  from 
1820  to  1824,  inclusive,  as  shown  by  the  immigration  reports  for  those  years.  Fiuther- 
more,  these  early  records,  which  relate  to  incoming  alien  passengers ,  not  to  immigrants 
alone,  overstate  somewhat  the  actual  immigration.  If,  however,  the  estimate  of 
360,000  persons  of  foreign  white  stock  in  1820  were  accepted  as  substantially  correct, 
the  estimated  native  white  stock  in  1820  would  be  7,510,000  instead  of  7,590,000. 
This  reduction  of  i.i  per  cent  would  reduce  the  estimates  for  1900,  1910,  and  1920 
in  the  same  proportion,  that  is,  to  36,890,000  for  1900,  41,980,000  for  1910,  and 
46,850,000  for  1920. 


196  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


and  approximately  the  same  in  degree.  Thus  the  test  supplies  no  cor- 
roboration of  this  basic  theory.  But  the  original  estimates  were  based 
on  census  data  as  to  the  foreign  white  stock  present  in  the  United  States 
in  1853  and  1870  and  on  the  net  white  immigration  from  1870  to  1920, 
whereas  the  test  estimates  took  into  account  the  net  white  immigration 
from  1820  to  1920  but  made  no  use  of  any  census  data  except  for  the  total 
white  population.  The  test,  therefore,  corroborates  the  original  estimates 
so  far  as  the  substantial  accuracy  of  the  census  data  in  question  is 
concerned. 


Appendix  B. 

RATE  OF  NATURAL  INCREASE  IN  FOREIGN  WHITE  STOCK: 

1900-1920. 

The  natural  increase  between  1900  and  1920  in  the  foreign  white  stock 
of  native  birth  (that  is,  the  total  foreign  white  stock  less  the  foreign-bom 
white)  may  be  estimated  by  deducting  the  number  of  surviving  persons 
bom  in  this  country  during  the  20-year  period  to  foreign  parents,  together 
with  a  suitable  proportion  of  those  having  mixed  parents,  from  the  total 
increase  in  the  foreign  white  stock  of  native  birth  during  the  20-year 
period. 

The  numerical  equivalents  of  the  foreign  white  stock  in  1900  and  in  1920 
were  29,520,000  and  47,490,000,  respectively  (Appendix  A).  Deducting 
the  numbers  of  foreign-bom  whites  enumerated  in  those  years  (10,2 13,81 7 
in  1900  and  13,712,754  in  1920)  leaves,  in  round  tens  of  thousands, 
19,310,000  and  33,780,000  as  the  numerical  equivalents  of  the  foreign 
white  stock  of  native  birth  as  constituted  in  1900  and  1920,  respectively. 
The  natural  increase  in  this  class  of  the  population  between  1900  and  1920 
is  represented  by  excess  of  births  (native  whites  of  native  parentage) 
over  deaths.  The  total  increase,  however,  includes  all  natives  of  foreign 
parentage,  together  with  a  proper  proportion  of  natives  of  mixed  parent- 
age, bom  between  1900  and  1920  and  surviving  in  1920.  In  order  to 
obtain  the  natural  increase,  therefore,  this  group  must  be  deducted  from 
the  total  increase. 

The  number  of  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage  under  20  years 
of  age  in  1920,  and  therefore  bom  since  January  i,  1900,  was  7,424,449; 
and  the  number  of  native  whites  of  mixed  parentage  under  20  years 
of  age  in  1920  was  3,246,874.  Reducing  these  two  numbers  by  the 
estimated  numbers  of  persons  born  between  January  i,  1900,  and  June  i, 
1900  (the  Twelfth  Census  date),  leaves  7,310,421  and  3,185,942,  respec- 
tively, as  the  numbers  bom  between  the  Twelfth  and  Fourteenth  Census 
dates  and  surviving  on  the  latter  date.  The  total  number  of  native 
whites  of  foreign  parentage  represents  foreign  white  stock ;  but  only  an 
indeterminate  proportion  of  the  native  whites  of  mixed  parentage  repre- 
sents foreign  stock.  If  each  of  the  native  parents  were  of  pure  native 
stock,  the  numerical  equivalent  of  the  amount  of  foreign  white  stock 
in  the  native  whites  of  mixed  parentage  would  be  exactly  one-half  of 
the  total  number;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  many  of  the  native  parents 
are  of  wholly  foreign  stock,  others  are  of  mixed  native  and  foreign  stock, 
and  still  others  are  of  pure  native  stock.     For  the  purposes  of  this 

197 


198  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

calculation  it  is  arbitrarily  assumed  that  the  numerical  equivalent 
of  the  foreign  stock  in  the  native  parents  of  the  native  whites  of  mixed 
parentage  is  equal  to  one-half  the  total  number  of  native  parents.  This 
is  a  larger  proportion  than  the  corresponding  one  for  native  whites 
generally,  but  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  proportion  of  foreign 
stock  in  the  native  whites  who  marry  foreign  whites  is  somewhat  larger 
than  the  average.  On  the  basis  of  this  assumption,  the  amount  of  foreign 
stock  in  the  native  whites  of  mixed  parentage  born  between  the  Twelfth 
and  Fourteenth  Census  dates  would,  therefore,  be  three-fourths  their 
total  number  (one-half  from  the  foreign  parents  and  one-fourth  from 
the  foreign  stock  in  the  native  parents),  or  2,389,455.  The  addition 
of  this  number  to  the  7,310,421  native  whites  of  foreign  parentage  in  the 
same  age  group  gives  a  total  of  9,699,876,  or  approximately  9,700,000, 
as  the  numerical  equivalent  of  the  foreign  white  stock  in  the  native 
whites  of  foreign  or  mLxed  parentage  bom  between  the  Twelfth  and 
Fourteenth  Census  dates  and  surviving  on  the  latter  date.  The  sub- 
traction of  this  number  (representing  persons  whose  parents  were  not 
included  in  the  foreign  white  stock  of  native  birth)  from  the  total  increase 
of  14,470,000  between  1900  and  1920  in  the  foreign  white  stock  of  native 
birth  leaves  4,770,000  as  the  natural  increase  within  the  foreign  white 
stock  of  native  birth  as  constituted  in  1900.  This  represents  a  rate  of 
24.7  per  cent,  which  is  less  than  the  estimated  rate  of  natural  increase, 
due  to  excess  of  births  over  deaths,  in  the  total  white  population  of 
the  country  during  the  20-year  period,  27  per  cent.  (Rates  for  1900- 
1910,  13.8  per  cent,  and  1910-1920,  1 1.6  per  cent,  compounded;  see  table, 
p.  191.) 


Appendix  C. 
ESTIMATION  OF   NET   IMMIGRATION. 

[Data  used  in  computing  rates  of  natural  increase  in  population:  See  Table  39  and  Appendix  A.) 
NET    IMMIGRATION,     182O   TO    I910. 

Immigration,  1820  to  igio. — The  earliest  immigration  records  are  those 
for  1820.  For  the  period  from  October  i  of  that  year  to  December  31, 
1867,  the  figures  relate  to  incoming  alien  passengers,  and  for  the  subse- 
quent years,  to  immigrants. 

Prior  to  July  i,  1898,  alien  arrivals  were  not  recorded  by  race  or  people, 
but  the  records  of  the  Bureau  of  Immigration  show  arrivals  by  country 
of  last  permanent  residence  since  1820.  In  order,  therefore,  to  approxi- 
mate the  white  immigration,  the  number  of  immigrants  from  Asia, 
Africa,  and  the  Pacific  Islands  was  deducted  from  the  total  for  each 
decade  to  June  30,  1900;  and  for  the  subsequent  period  the  white 
immigration  was  obtained  by  deducting  the  numbers  of  Africans,  Chinese, 
Japanese,  Koreans,  and  Pacific  Islanders  from  the  total. 

Emigration,  1820  to  18 jo. — Until  July  i,  1907,  emigration  was  not 
recorded ;  and,  as  the  foreign-bom  population  was  not  separately  reported 
at  censuses  prior  to  1850,  no  data  are  available  on  which  to  base  an 
estimate  of  the  emigration  which  took  place  during  the  first  half  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  It  may  be  safely  assumed,  however,  that  the  emi- 
gration up  to  1850  was  negligible;  and  an  examination  of  the  census 
statistics  and  of  the  immigration  statistics  for  the  period  from  1850  to 
1870,  due  account  being  taken  of  mortality,  indicates  that  the  emigration 
between  1850  and  1870  was  also  negligible.  The  total  immigration  from 
1820  to  1870  has,  therefore,  been  treated  as  the  net  immigration.  During 
the  succeeding  decades,  however,  considerable  emigration  took  place,  and 
it  is  therefore  necessary  to  estim.ate  it  in  order  to  secure  an  estimate  of  the 
net  immigration. 

Emigration,  18 jo  to  igio. — In  order  to  expedite  the  work,  the  white 
emigration  was  assumed  to  represent  the  total  emigration  during  the 
decades  from  1870  to  19 10,  the  difference  being  so  slight  that  the  resultant 
error  was  deemed  negligible.  The  estimate  was  made  by  adding  the 
number  of  white  immigrants  during  the  decade  to  the  number  of  foreign- 
bom  w'hite  persons  enumerated  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade,  deducting 
the  estimated  mortality,  subtracting  from  the  remainder  the  number  of 
foreign-bom  white  persons  enumerated  at  the  end  of  the  decade,  and 
treating  the  result  as  representing  the  number  of  survixang  foreign- 
born  white  emigrants.  The  numbers  of  foreign-bom  white  persons 
were  ascertained  from  the  census  reports,  and  the  numbers  of  white 
immigrants  were  estimated  as  explained  above. 

There  is  no  way  of  estimating  the  am.ount  of  native  emigration  for  the 

decades  prior  to  1910,  but  such  emigration  was  probably  so  small  as  to  be 

negligible  for  the  purposes  of  these  calculations. 

199 


200 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 


Death  rate  of  foreign-born  white. — The  following  statement  shows  the 
death  rates  per  i,ooo  for  the  foreign-bom  white  population  and  the  total 
white  population  for  19 19  (the  year  which  terminated  on  the  day  preced- 
ing the  Fourteenth  Census  date),  19 10,  1900,  and  1890: 


YBAR. 

Foreign- 
bom 
•white. 

Total 
■white. 

Area. 

17-5 

17-2 
I9-4 
19.4 

12.4 

14-6 
17-3 
19.  I 

in  nonregistration  states. 
Do. 

Registration  area. 

Do. 

Since  the  death  rate  for  the  foreign-bom  white  population  in  1890  was 
only  slightly  higher  than  that  for  the  total  white  population,  it  has  been 
assumed,  for  the  purposes  of  these  calculations,  to  have  been  the  same  as 
the  rate  for  the  total  white  population  in  earlier  years.  The  rate  for  the 
total  population  of  the  registration  area  in  1880,  19.8  per  1,000,  was 
assumed  to  represent  the  rate  for  the  white  population;  and  for  1870  the 
death  rate  for  the  white  population  was  estimated  at  20.3  per  1,000,  this 
estimate  being  based  on  the  mortality  records  of  ]\Iassachusetts. 

Estimate  of  mortality  dtiring  given  decade  among  foreign-born  white 
population  enumerated  at  beginning  of  decade. — In  making  this  estimate 
account  must  be  taken  of  the  increase  in  the  average  age  of  the  group 
during  the  decade,  and  of  the  decrease  from  year  to  year  in  the  number 
to  which  the  rate  is  applied.  During  the  decade  the  younger  element  is 
depleted  only  slightly  by  death,  whereas  the  older  element  is  depleted 
much  more  rapidly.  Moreover,  while  the  minimum  age  of  the  group 
advances  by  10,  the  maximum  age  remains  practically  unchanged.  It 
may  be  assumed,  therefore,  for  the  purposes  of  this  calculation  that  the 
average  age  of  the  group  increases  by  about  5  during  the  decade. 

The  Life  Tables  *  show  that,  on  the  average,  the  death  rate  for  the 
foreign-bom  white  population  at  a  given  age  is  about  30  per  cent  greater 
than  that  at  the  age  five  years  younger.  (Of  course,  the  increase  in  the 
rate  from  one  year  of  age  to  another  through  the  various  quinquennial 
periods  is  far  from  uniform  and  is  greater  at  the  older  ages  than  at  the 
younger.  No  attempt  was  made  to  work  out  an  exact  ratio  of  increase 
applicable  to  the  average  death  rate  for  the  foreign-bom  white  population 
of  all  ages,  for  the  reason  that  the  element  of  uncertainty  in  the  entire 
calculation  is  necessarily  so  great  that  the  resort  to  an  exact  method  in 
order  to  determine  this  one  factor  would  not  increase  the  accuracy  of  the 

'  Compiled  by  Prof.  James  W.  Glover,  of  the  University  of  Michigan.  The  tables 
used  in  this  calculation  arc  based  on  the  mortality  in  1909,  1910,  and  1911  in  the 
"original  registration  states,"  namely,  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massiichu- 
setts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Indiana,  Michigan,  and 
the  District  of  Columbia. 


ESTIMATION  OF  NET  IMMIGRATION.  201 


result  to  a  sufficient  extent  to  justify  the  labor  involved.  It  was  esti- 
mated, therefore,  after  a  careful  inspection  of  the  rates  for  each  fifth  year 
of  age  from  15  to  70,  that  the  increase  in  the  general  rate  for  the  entire 
foreign-bom  population  during  a  period  in  which  the  average  age 
advanced  by  5  would  be  about  30  per  cent.) 

If  the  rate  was  30  per  cent  greater  at  the  end  of  the  decade  than  at  the 
beginning,  the  average  rate  for  the  entire  decade  may  be  assumed  to  have 
been  1 5  per  cent  greater  than  the  rate  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade.  The 
decrease  during  the  decade  in  the  total  number  to  which  the  rate  was  ap- 
plied was  approximately  one-fifth,  and  therefore  the  average  was  approxi- 
mately nine-tenths  of  the  number  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade. 

Thus,  in  order  to  obtain  a  decennial  rate  applicable  to  the  foreign-bom 
white  population  enumerated  at  the  beginning  of  a  decade,  the  normal 
rate  should  be  increased  by  15  per  cent  to  account  for  the  effect  of  the 
advance  in  age,  and  the  result  should  be  decreased  by  10  per  cent  to 
account  for  the  effect  of  the  reduction  in  number.  This  would  yield  a 
net  increase  of  only  3.5  per  cent  (i.  15  X  0.90=  1.035)  in  the  decennial  rate 
applicable  to  the  number  enumerated  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade.^ 

Estimate  of  viortality  during  given  decade  among  white  immigrants 
arriving  within  that  decade. — To  obtain  a  rate  applicable  to  the  total 
number  of  white  immigrants  arriving  during  the  decade,  the  normal 
annual  death  rate  for  the  foreign-bom  white  population  was  multiplied 
by  5,  it  being  assumed  that  the  immigration  was  distributed  uniformly 
throughout  the  decade  and  that  therefore  the  average  length  of  time 
elapsing  between  arrival  in  this  country  and  the  end  of  the  decade  was 
five  years,  and  the  result  was  arbitrarily  reduced  by  one-fourth  to  ac- 
count for  the  lower  average  age  of  immigrants  than  of  the  entire  foreign- 
born  population. 

Final  calculation. — The  remainder  of  the  process  was  as  follows:  The 
estimated  number  of  survivors,  at  the  end  of  the  decade,  among  the  white 

'  A  subsequent  estimate  of  the  mortality,  diiring  the  10-year  period  beginning 
Apr.  15,  1910,  among  the  foreign-born  whites  enumerated  in  1910,  based  on  the  age 
distribution  as  showTi  by  the  Thirteentli  Census  and  the  death  rates  as  shown  by  the 
Life  Tables,  indicates  a  decennial  rate  of  178  per  1,000  applicable  to  the  number 
enumerated  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade,  as  against  an  average  annual  rate  of  16.4 
per  1,000  for  the  years  1909,  1910,  and  191 1.  The  decennial  rate  was  thus  8.5  per  cent, 
or  about  one-twelfth,  greater  than  10  times  the  average  annual  rate  for  1909,  1910,  and 
1911.  The  death  rate  for  the  total  white  population  of  the  registration  area  in  1919, 
however,  showed  a  decline  of  about  12  per  cent,  or  nearly  one-eighth,  as  compared  with 
the  average  for  1909,  1910,  and  191 1.  If  it  be  assumed  that  the  rate  for  the  foreign- 
bom  white  population,  disregarding  the  effect  of  advancing  age,  also  declined  by  ap- 
proximately one-eighth  between  1910  and  1919,  and  if  it  be  further  assumed  that  this 
indicated  a  decline  of  one-sixteenth ,  or  about  6  per  cent,  in  the  average  annual  rate  for 
the  decade,  the  net  excess  of  the  decennial  rate  applicable  to  the  foreign-bom  white 
population  over  10  times  the  average  annual  rate  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade  would 
be  2  per  cent.  (Increase  due  to  advancing  age,  8.5  per  cent.  Decrease  dx:e  to  general 
reduction  in  rate,  6  per  cent.  108.5  P^^  ^^"^  reduced  by  6  per  cent —  that  is,  1.085  X 
0.94 — equals  102  per  cent.) 


202  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 

immigrants  arriving  during  the  decade  was  added  to  the  estimated  num- 
ber of  survivors  among  the  foreign-bom  whites  enumerated  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  decade.  The  result  represented  the  estimated  number  of 
foreign-bom  whites  who  would  have  been  present  in  the  country  had  there 
been  no  emigration  during  the  decade,  and  the  difference  between  this 
number  and  the  number  actually  enumerated  represented  the  reduction 
due  to  emigration — in  other  words,  the  number  of  surviving  white 
emigrants.  It  was  assumed  that  the  emigration  was  uniform  throughout 
the  decade,  and  that  therefore  the  average  length  of  time  elapsing  be- 
tween emigration  and  the  end  of  the  decade  was  five  years.  Accord- 
ingly the  normal  annual  death  rate  for  the  foreign-bom  white  population, 
expressed  as  a  percentage,  was  multiplied  by  5  and  the  product  was  sub- 
tracted from  100  per  cent,  leaving  a  percentage  representing  the  propor- 
tion which  the  number  of  surxdvors  at  the  end  of  the  decade  formed  of 
the  total  number  emigrating  during  the  decade,  and  this  percentage  was 
divided  into  the  estimated  number  of  surviving  emigrants.  (The  divnsor 
used  for  the  decades  prior  to  1900  was  0.9,  and  for  1900-19 10,  0.909.)^ 

NET  IMMIGRATION  AND  ITS  EFFECT  ON  POPULATION  INCREASE,  191O-1920. 

The  estimate  of  the  net  white  immigration  between  April  15,  19 10,  and 
December  31,  19 19,  was  made  in  the  following  manner: 

From  the  total  number  of  white  immigrants  (5,153,489)  who  arrived  in 
the  United  States  during  the  period  from  July  i,  19 10,  to  June  30,  19 19, 
there  was  subtracted  the  estimated  number  of  white  emigrants (2, 02 3, 000) 
who  departed  during  the  same  period,  leaving  approximately  3,130,000  as 
the  excess  of  white  immigration  over  white  emigration  during  the  9-year 
period  in  question.  The  number  of  white  emigrants  was  estimated  by 
adding  to  the  number  of  white  alien  emigrants,  as  shown  by  the  immi- 
gration reports,  the  estimated  numbers  of  native  and  naturalized  emi- 
grants. The  numbers  of  such  emigrants  who  departed  prior  to  July  i, 
1917,  are  not  given  in  the  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Immigration;  but  the 
excess  of  departures  over  arrivals  of  citizens  during  the  period  from  July  i , 
1 9 10,  to  June  30,  191 7,  has  been  assumed  to  represent  the  number  of 
citizens  who  emigrated  during  that  period. 

The  immigration  reports  do  not  show,  by  months,  the  arrivals  and  de- 
partures of  citizens  nor  the  arrivals  and  departures  of  aliens  classified 
according  to  race.  Accordingly,  the  net  immigration  during  the  periods 
from  April  15  to  June  30,  1910,  and  from  July  i  to  December  31,  1919, 
was  estimated  as  follows:  For  the  period  from  April  15  to  June  30, 
1 9 10,  one-half  the  total  excess  of  immigrants  over  alien  emigrants  during 

'  According  to  the  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Immigration,  the  average  annual  alien 
emigration  during  the  7  years  ended  June  30,  1914 — the  only  nonnal  years  for  which 
emigration  figures  are  available — was  281,967.  If  this  average  be  accepted  as  fairly 
representative  of  the  decade  iqoo-1910,  it  would  indicate  a  total  alien  emigration  (all 
races)  of  approximately  2,820,000.  The  estimate  made  by  the  method  described 
above  gives  3,058,000  as  the  number  of  white  emigrants,  both  naturalized  citizens 
and  aliens. 


ESTIMATION  OF  NET  IMMIGRATION.  203 

April  was  added  to  the  corresponding  excess  during  May  and  June. 
This  gave  a  total  of  258,962.  (The  excess  of  citizen  departures  over 
citizen  arrivals  was  disregarded,  since,  for  so  short  a  period,  it  might 
not  supply  a  trustworthy  approximation  of  the  actual  number  of  citizen 
emigrants.)  For  the  6-months  period  from  July  i  to  December  31, 
1919,  there  was  a  slight  excess,  3,329,  of  alien  emigrants  over  immi- 
grants. The  number  of  citizen  emigrants  during  this  6-months  period 
was  estimated  at  31,000,  approximately  one-half  of  the  total  number 
of  such  emigrants  during  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1920. 

The  net  white  immigration  from  April  15,  19 10,  to  December  31,  19 19, 
thus  estimated,  was  3,355,000,  or  in  round  fifties  of  thousands,  3,350,000 
(3,130,000-1-259,000-3,000-31,000  =  3,355,000). 

The  net  immigration  of  all  races  was  estimated  by  adding  to  the  net 
white  immigration  the  difference  between  the  total  nonwhite  immigra- 
tion and  the  total  nonwhite  alien  emigration.  (Beginning  with  July, 
1907,  the  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Immigration  show  emigration  by  race 
or  people.) 

In  estimating  the  effect  of  immigration  on  population  increase  during 
preceding  decades  it  has  been  assumed  that  the  net  immigration  was 
distributed  uniformly  throughout  the  decade,  so  that  the  average  length 
of  time  elapsing  between  arrival  in  this  country  and  the  close  of  the  dec- 
ade would  be  five  years,  and  the  rate  representing  the  natural  increase 
in  the  families  of  the  immigrants  during  that  time,  expressed  as  a  decen- 
nial rate,  would  be  equal  to  one-half  the  decennial  rate  applicable  to  the 
population  present  in  the  United  States  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade. 
Such  an  assumption  is  not  justified,  however,  in  the  case  of  the  decade 
19 10-1920,  inasmuch  as  about  three-fourths  of  the  immigrants  who 
came  to  the  United  States  betw^een  April  15,  1910,  and  January  i,  1920, 
arrived  prior  to  July  i,  1914.  Accordingly,  the  natural  increase  in  the 
net  white  immigration  of  3,350,000  was  roughly  estimated  at  250,000, 
or  a  trifle  more  than  two-thirds  the  natural  increase  which  would  have 
taken  place  if  the  entire  3,350,000  persons  had  been  present  in  the  United 
States  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade;  and  for  the  net  immigration  of  all 
races,  estimated  at  3,470,000,  the  natural  increase  was  roughly  estimated 
at  260,000,  or  10,000  more  than  that  for  the  net  white  immigration. 
Thus  the  white  population  resulting  in  1920  from  immigration  between 
1910  and  1920  was  approximately  3,600,000;  and  the  population  of  all 
races  resulting  in  1920  from  immigration  during  the  decade  was  approxi- 
mately 3,730,000. 

In  calculating  the  rate  of  natural  increase  in  the  population  of  all 
races,  the  net  immigration  plus  its  estimated  natural  increase  was  sub- 
tracted from  the  total  population  increase  and  the  remainder  (represent- 
ing the  increase  which  would  have  taken  place  if  there  had  been  no 
immigration  nor  emigration)  was  divided  by  the  number  of  persons  of 
all  races  enumerated  in  19 10;  and  a  similar  method  was  employed  in 
calculating  the  rate  of  natural  increase  in  the  white  population. 


204 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


NET  WHITE  IMMIGRATION   IN    RELATION   TO  INCREASE   IN    FOREIGN-BORN 

WHITE  population:  1 9 10-1920. 

The  estimate  of  the  net  white  immigration  to  this  country  between 
the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Census  dates,  3,350,000  (originally  made 
for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  effect  of  immigration  on  the  total 
white  population,  not  on  the  foreign-bom  white  population  alone),  by 
including  emigration  of  native  citizens,  understates  somewhat  the  net 
addition  to  the  foreign-bom  white  population  resulting  from  excess  of 
immigration  over  emigration.  On  the  other  hand,  the  emigration  figures 
as  given  in  the  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Immigration  may  be  somewhat 
incomplete,  for  the  reason  that  during  the  war  certain  naturalized  foreign 
whites  may  have  left  the  country  to  escape  compulsory  military  servnce, 
naturally  departing  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  no  actual  record  of  their 
going.  Moreover,  citizens  of  enemy  countries  may  have  left  in  order  to 
take  part  in  the  war  under  the  flags  of  their  native  countries.  In  view  of 
the  impossibility  of  evaluating  these  uncertain  factors,  it  is  reasonable  to 
assume  that  the  possible  understatement  of  alien  emigration  in  the 
official  records  is  offset  by  the  inclusion  of  native  emigrants  in  the 
estimate. 

NET  immigration,  ALL  RACES,  AND  NET  WHITE  IMMIGRATION:    1820-192O. 

The  statement  below  shows  the  estimated  net  immigration  of  all  races 
and  the  estimated  net  white  immigration  for  the  decades  from  1 820  to  1 920. 
As  previously  explained,  the  total  immigration  of  all  races  and  the  total 
white  immigration  were  assumed  to  represent  the  net  immigration  of  all 
races  and  the  net  white  immigration,  respectively,  for  the  decades  prior 
to  1870;  for  the  decades  from  1870  to  19 10  the  net  immigration  of  all 
races  was  estimated  by  deducting  the  estimated  white  emigration  (as- 
sumed to  represent  the  total  emigration)  from  the  total  immigration, 
and  the  net  white  immigration  was  estimated  by  deducting  the  esti- 
mated white  emigration  from  the  white  immigration;  and  for  the  decade 
1 9 10- 1 920  the  estimates  were  made  in  the  manner  described  under  the 
head  "Net  immigration  and  its  effect  on  population  increase,  1910-1920." 


1820-1830. 
1830-1840. 
1840-1850. 
1850-1860. 
1860-1870. 
1870-1880. 
J880-1890. 
1890-1900. 
1900-1910. 
1910-1930. 


Net  immiKration, 
all  races. 


137.000 

558,000 

I,  599,000 

I,  663,000 

1,  356, 000 

1.  530,  000 

4,  373,000 
3,  339,000 

5,  558,  000 
3,  467,  000 


Net  TPhite 
immigrat^pn. 


137,000 
558,  000 

1.  599.  000 

3,  631,  000 

3,  391,  000 

2.  395.  000 

4,  193,  000 

3.  143,  oco 
5, 365.  000 
3.  355. 000 


>  Adjusted  to  correspond  to  census  dates. 


Appendix  D. 

FERTILITY  OF  NATIVE  WHITES. 

By  dividing  the  number  of  native  white  children  under  lo  years  of  age, 
excluding  those  of  foreign  parentage  and  one-half  those  of  mixed  par- 
entage, enumerated  in  a  given  division  or  state,  by  the  average  number 
of  native  white  persons  in  the  same  division  or  state  during  the  decade 
(that  is,  a  simple  average  of  the  numbers  enumerated  at  the  beginning 
and  end  of  the  decade),  roughly  comparable  rates  can  be  established  for 
the  native  white  element  for  the  decade  19 lo  to  1920.  These  rates 
prove  to  be  as  follows  for  the  various  divisions: 

Per  cent. 

New  England 13.6 

Middle  Atlantic 15.5 

East  North  Central 18.8 

West  North  Central 20. 7 

South  Atlantic 26.3 

East  South  Central 26.7 

West  South  Central 26.3 

Mountain 24.1 

Pacific 17.2 

Average,  United  States 20.  3 

The  foregoing  percentages  do  not  represent  birth  rates,  since  they 
refer  to  the  numbers  of  children  bom  between  the  Thirteenth  and  Four- 
teenth Census  dates  and  surviving  on  the  latter  date.  The  total  numbers 
born  would,  therefore,  represent  somewhat  higher  birth  rates.  Neither 
do  they  represent  rates  of  increase,  since  deaths  of  persons  bom  prior  to 
the  Thirteenth  Census  date  are  not  taken  into  account. 

As  might  be  expected  from  the  knowm  trend  of  increase,  the  New 
England  states  showed  the  smallest  proportion  of  children  bom  to  native 
whites,  while  the  southern  divisions  showed  the  largest  proportions,  a 
fact  also  widely  recognized,  since  the  native  white  stock  has  continued 
to  increase  at  a  relatively  rapid  rate  in  the  South,  this  great  area  as  yet 
not  having  been  invaded  to  any  degree  by  the  foreign  element. 

Considered  by  states,  the  northern  New  England  states,  Maine,  New 
Hampshire,  and  Vermont,  show  proportions  of  17,  14,  and  17  per  cent, 
while  for  each  of  the  three  lower  states,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island, 
and  Connecticut,  the  proportion  is  distinctly  smaller,  13  per  cent.  In 
general,  the  proportions  for  the  agricultural  states,  even  in  New  England, 
are  higher  than  those  for  the  distinctly  industrial  states.  For  example, 
the  proportion  for  New  York  is  the  same  as  that  for  Massachusetts  and 
Connecticut,   namely,    13   per  cent,   while    Ohio    shows    19  per    cent, 

205 


206  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

Wyoming  24  percent,  and  California  16  per  cent.  Some  light  is  tliro\vTi 
upon  the  reduced  proportions  sho\\Ti  by  the  industrial  states,  in  which 
the  numbers  of  native  whites  of  foreign  or  mixed  parentage  are  relati\ely 
large,  by  the  fact  that  the  proportion  of  such  persons  who  laarry  is  dis- 
tinctly lower  than  the  corresponding  proportion  for  native  whites  of 
native  parentage. 


Appendix  E. 

CONSTRUCTION  OF  TABLES  62,  63,  AND  64. 

The  number  of  persons  engaged  in  agriculture  and  the  value  of  agri- 
cultural products,  as  shouTi  in  Table  62,  were  used  in  the  compilation  of 
the  corresponding  percentages  in  Table  63.  The  number  of  persons 
engaged  in  manufactures  and  production  of  minerals,  and  the  value 
added  by  manufacture  plus  value  of  products  of  mineral  industries,  as 
shown  in  Table  62,  were  obtained  by  appropriate  combinations  of  the 
items  on  which  were  based  the  percentages  in  Table  63. 

URBAN    POPULATION. 

The  urban  population  for  1920  and  19 10  was  taken  from  the  census 
reports.  The  urban  population  for  1850  was  estimated  in  the  following 
manner : 

All  towns  having  2,500  inhabitants  or  more  in  Massachusetts,  New 
Hampshire,  and  Rhode  Island  were  treated  as  urban,  in  accordance 
with  the  present  practice.  Because  of  this  practice  the  urban  popula- 
tion of  these  three  states  in  1850  was  overestimated  to  an  extent  some- 
what greater  than  that  to  which  it  was  overstated  by  the  recent  census 
figures,  for  the  reason  that  in  1850  the  population  actually  rural  in  the 
to^\^lS  having  2,500  inhabitants  or  more  formed  a  considerably  larger 
proportion  of  the  total  population  than  was  the  case  in  19 10  or  1920. 
It  seems  logical,  however,  to  apply  the  same  rule  for  1850  as  for  19 10  and 
1920. 

All  pla.ces  which  in  the  1850  report  were  shown  separately  from  the 
townships  or  other  minor  civil  divisions  in  which  they  were  located  and 
which  in  that  year  had  2,500  inhabitants  or  more  were  treated  as  urban, 
regardless  of  whether  they  were  or  were  not  incorporated.  Probably 
nearly  all  such  places  were  incorporated;  and  even  if  they  were  not, 
they  were  urban  in  character. 

In  most  cases,  however,  the  1850  report  did  not  show  the  smaller 
cities  and  villages  separately  from  the  minor  civil  divisions  in  which 
they  were  located.  In  each  such  case  the  place  was  assumed  to  have 
had  a  separate  existence  as  an  urban  community  in  1850  if  shown  sepa- 
rately in  1870  and  if,  from  a  comparison  of  the  1870  and  1920  popula- 
tion figures,  it  appeared  that  the  population  in  1850  was  2,500  or  more. 

The  proportion  which  the  urban  population  formed  of  the  total  for 
the  minor  civil  division  was  almost  invariably  larger  in  1920  than  in  1870, 

207 


208  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION-  1910-1920. 


and  it  was  assumed  that  the  increase  in  the  proportion  between  1850  and 
1870  was  two-fifths  as  large  as  the  increase  between  1870  and  1920. 
For  example,  if  the  urban  population  formed  50  per  cent  of  the  total 
in  1870  and  60  per  cent  in  1920,  it  was  assumed  to  have  been  46  per  cent 
in  1850. 

In  a  few  cases,  where  it  appeared  that  extensive  additions  of  terri- 
tory had  been  made  to  the  urban  area  since  1870,  the  proportion  was 
assumed  to  have  been  the  same  in  1850  as  in  1870. 

For  a  very  few  places  no  separate  figures  for  1870  were  given,  and 
accordingly  it  was  necessary  to  project  the  proportion  through  1880. 

In  cases  where  an  entire  minor  civil  division — such  as  Watervliet  town, 
Albany  County,  N.  Y. — has  been  incorporated  since  1850,  its  total 
population  in  that  year,  if  2,500  or  more,  was  treated  as  urban. 

Where  the  name  of  a  place  had  disappeared  since  1850,  but  where  it 
was  obvious  that  the  place  had  been  annexed  to  some  city — for  example, 
Williamsburgh,  Kings  County  (Brooklyn),  N.  Y.— the  population  in 
1850,  if  2,500  or  more,  was  treated  as  urban. 

A  large  part  of  the  population  of  Philadelphia  County,  Pa.,  in  1850 
was  enumerated  in  territory  outside  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  Between 
1850  and  i860,  however,  the  city  limits  were  extended  to  include  the 
entire  county.  Accordingly  the  population  of  every  minor  civil  divi- 
sion in  the  county  in  1850  which  had  2,500  inhabitants  or  more  in  that 
year  was  treated  as  urban. 

Population  of  cities  of  100,000  and  over  and  their  adjacent  territory. — 
The  term  "adjacent  territory"  refers  to  the  area  lying  within  a  distance 
of  approximately  10  miles  beyond  the  boundaries  of  the  central  city. 
In  cases  where  the  city  boundaries  were  extended  between  19 10  and 
1920,  the  boundaries  of  the  district  as  a  whole  were  correspondingly 
extended.  Accordingly  the  19 10  population  shown  for  a  given  district 
in  the  census  report  for  1920  is  not  in  all  cases  the  same  as  the  population 
shoAvn  for  that  district  in  the  19 10  report,  since  the  figures  in  the  1920 
report  relate  to  the  area  as  constituted  in  1920.  The  1910  figures  used 
as  a  basis  for  the  percentages  in  Table  63  are  taken  from  the  19 10  report 
and  of  course  relate  to  the  areas  as  constituted  in  that  year. 

The  total  for  1920  (36,886,961)  represents  the  population  of  58  districts 
comprising  68  cities  of  100,000  or  more  and  their  adjacent  territory, 
and  the  total  for  1910  (27,020,818)  represents  the  population  of  44 
districts  comprising  50  cities  of  100,000  and  over  and  their  adjacent 
territory. 

The  1920  distribution  by  states  for  those  districts  which  lie  in  two  or 
more  states  was  made  from  the  data  on  pages  C5  to  71  and  73  to  75, 
Volume  I,  Fourteenth  Census  Reports.  The  1910  population  figures  for 
the  various  minor  civil  divisions  comprised  in  the  districts  as  constituted 


CONSTRUCTION  OF  TABLES  62,  63,  AND  64.  209 

in  ig20  were  readily  available,  but  no  such  figures  were  readily  available 
for  the  districts  as  consHhited  in  igio.  Accordingly,  the  1910  distribu- 
tion by  states  for  each  district  lying  in  two  or  more  states  was  made  on 
the  assumption  that  the  proportions  in  the  several  states  were  the  same 
for  the  1910  population  of  the  area  as  constituted  in  1910  as  for  the 
1910  population  of  the  area  as  constituted  in  1920. 

VALUE   OF    PRODUCTS. 

Agricultural  products. — For  19 19  and  1909  the  total  value  of  agricultural 
products  was  obtained  by  adding  together  the  value  of  all  crops,  the  value 
of  all  live-stock  products  (dairy  products,  eggs  and  chickens,  wool  and 
mohair,  and  honey  and  wax),  and  the  value  of  domestic  animals  sold  or 
slaughtered  on  farms.  The  total  thus  does  not  include  forest  products 
of  farms  nor  products  of  greenhouses  and  other  floral  products.  A  con- 
siderable but  indeterminable  amount  of  duplication  results  from  the  feed- 
ing of  crops  to  live  stock,  and  some  duplication  also  arises  from  the  sale 
of  domestic  animals  by  one  farmer  to  another  and  the  subsequent  resale 
or  slaughter  of  such  animals  by  the  purchaser  during  the  census  year. 

The  value  of  agricultural  products  for  1 849-1 850  (12  months  ended 
May  31,  1850)  was  determined  by  calculating  average  unit  values  from 
Tables  CLXXXVI  and  CXC,  pages  174  and  176,  Compendium  of  the 
Seventh  Census,  and  applying  these  values  to  the  amounts  of  those 
agricultural  products  which  were  reported  in  quantity  units.  The  total 
for  each  state  was  then  ascertained  by  adding  together  the  various  items 
in  Table  CLXXXV,  beginning  with  "Value  of  animals  slaughtered," 
page  171,  but  omitting  "Home-made  manufactures."  There  are  also 
included  estimates  for  poultry,  milk,  and  eggs,  for  which  no  reports  were 
made  in  1850.  The  poultry  estimate  was  made  by  distributing  the 
$13,000,000  estimate  for  the  United  States  given  in  Table  CXC  among  the 
states  on  the  basis  of  the  distribution  in  1840.  The  $5,000,000  estimate 
for  eggs  made  in  Table  CXC  was  distributed  among  the  states  on  the 
assumption  that  the  value  of  the  egg  product  in  each  state  was  five- 
thirteenths  as  great  as  the  value  of  the  poultry  product.  The  $7,000,000 
estimate  for  milk  made  in  Table  CXC,  which  was  equal  to  approximately 
one-eighth  the  combined  value  of  butter  and  cheese,  was  distributed 
among  the  states  on  the  assumption  that  for  each  state  the  value  of  milk 
was  equal  to  one-eighth  the  combined  value  of  butter  and  cheese. 

Follo^ving  are  the  various  items  which  made  up  the  1 850  total : 

Crops — Barley,  buckwheat,  cane  sugar,  clover  seed,  cotton,  flax, 
flaxseed,  grass  seed  (other  than  clover),  hay,  hemp,  hops,  Indian  com, 
maple  sugar,  market- garden  products,  molasses,  oats,  orchard  products, 
peas  and  beans,  potatoes  (Irish),  potatoes  (sweet),  rice,  rye,  tobacco, 
wheat,  wine. 

107°— 22 14 


210  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

Other  products — Animals  slaughtered,  beeswax  and  honey,  butter, 
cheese,  eggs,  milk,  poultry,  silk  cocoons,  wool. 

As  the  net  result  of  various  exclusions,  adjustments,  and  corrections 
made  in  order  to  bring  the  figures  into  harmony  with  those  for  recent 
censuses,  the  amount  used  as  representing  the  total  value  of  agricultural 
products  in  1850,  $974,387,000,  is  less  by  about  $325,000,000  than  the 
total  given  in  Table  CXC  of  the  Compendium  for  1850.  The  most  impor- 
tant exclusions  and  adjustments  were  the  following: 

(i)  The  exclusions  of  the  items  "Live  stock,  over  i  year  old — annual 
product,  $175,000,000,"  and  "Cattle,  sheep,  and  pigs,  under  i  year  old — 
$50,000,000."  Such  items  are  not  now  included  as  part  of  the  total 
annual  agricultural  product. 

(2)  The  substitution  of  $111,703,142  as  the  value  of  animals  slaugh- 
tered, w^hich  is  given  in  Table  CLXXXVI  and  represents  the  sum  of  the 
several  state  items,  for  the  item  "Animals  slaughtered,  $55,000,000," 
in  Table  CXC. 

(3)  The  exclusion  of  "Residuum  of  crops,  not  consumed  by  stock,  com 
fodder,  cottonseed,  straw,  rice  flour,  and  manure  (Patent  Reports), 
$100,000,000."  No  reliable  apportionment  of  these  items  among  the 
states  could  be  made. 

Value  added  by  maniijaciure. — The  items  under  this  head  for  19 19  and 
1909  were  taken  from  the  manufactures  reports  for  those  years.  For  the 
year  ended  May  31,  1850  (the  12-month  period  covered  by  the  report  for 
1850),  the  figures  were  calculated  from  the  Digest  of  the  Statistics  of 
Manufactures.  The  state  totals  for  cost  of  raw  materials  and  value  of 
products  (Table  4  of  the  Digest)  were  reduced  by  subtracting  from  them 
the  sums  of  the  corresponding  items  lor  the  following  industries  (Digest 
Tables  i  and  2) :  Blacksmiths,  bleachers  and  dyers,  carpenters  and 
builders,  chrome  mining,  coal  mining,  dyers,  fisheries,  flour  and  grist 
mills,  gold  mining,  iron  mining,  lumber  (sawing  and  planing) ,  millstones, 
millstones  (burr),  slate  quarries,  stone  and  marble  quarries,  timber  hewers, 
timber  and  wood,  wood  cutting  and  cording.  (The  "flour  and  grist 
mills"  items  doubtless  included  the  output  of  some  mills  which  would 
now  be  treated  as  merchant  mills  and  included  as  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments, but  probably  the  greater  part  of  the  output  of  this  group  of 
mills  in  1 849-1 850  represented  custom  mills,  which  are  not  now  treated 
as  manufacturing  establishments.) 

The  revised  state  totals  for  cost  of  raw  materials  were  subtracted  from 
the  corresponding  totals  for  value  of  products  in  order  to  obtain  the  value 
added  by  manufacture.  This,  rather  than  the  value  of  products,  has 
been  used  in  comparison  with  the  value  of  agricultural  products  and  the 
value  of  mineral  products,  for  the  reason  that  the  cost  of  the  raw  materials 
represents  a  much  greater  part  of  the  total  value  of  products  in  the  case 


CONSTRUCTION  OF  TABLES  62,  63,  AND  64.  211 

of  manufacturing  industries  than  in  the  case  of  agricultural  or  mineral 
industries. 

Mineral  products. — The  total  value  of  mineral  products  was  obtained 
by  totalizing  the  following  items  in  Tables  i  and  2  of  the  Digest  of  the 
Statistics  of  Manufactures  for  1850:  Chrome  mining,  coal  mining,  gold 
mining,  iron  mining,  millstones,  millstones  (burr),  slate  quarries,  stone 
and  marble  quarries. 

PERSONS  ENGAGED   IN   INDUSTRIES. 

Agriculture. — The  numbers  of  persons  engaged  in  agriculture  in  1920 
and  1910  were  obtained  from  the  occupations  reports.  The  number  for 
each  state  was  calculated  by  deducting  the  following  items  from  the 
total  for  the  group  "Agriculture,  forestry,  and  animal  husbandry": 
Farmers,  turpentine  farms;  farm  foremen,  turpentine  farms;  farm 
laborers,  turpentine  farms;  florists;  greenhouse  laborers;  landscape 
gardeners;  fishermen  and  oystermen;  foresters,  forest  rangers,  and  timber 
cruisers;  foremen  and  overseers,  log  and  timber  camps;  inspectors, 
scalers,  and  surveyors;  managers  and  officials,  log  and  timber  camps; 
owners  and  proprietors,  log  and  timber  camps;  teamsters  and  haulers, 
log  and  timber  camps;  other  lumbermen,  raftsmen,  and  woodchoppers. 

The  1850  occupations  data  are  not  comparable  with  those  for  19 10  and 
1920,  as  the  earlier  figures  relate  only  to  males  15  years  of  age  and  over 
and  do  not  include  slaves. 

Manufactures. — The  numbers  of  persons  engaged  in  manufactures  in 
1 9 19  and  1909  were  taken  from  the  manufactures  reports  for  those 
years.  Data  for  1 849-1 850  are  given  in  the  report  for  that  year,  but 
have  not  been  used  because  of  the  lack  of  corresponding  figures  for  agri- 
culture. 

Production  of  minerals. — The  numbers  of  persons  engaged  in  the  pro- 
duction of  minerals  in  19 19  and  1909  were  taken  from  the  mines  and 
quarries  reports.  As  in  the  case  of  manufactures,  data  are  available  for 
1 849-1850,  but  have  not  been  used  because  of  the  lack  of  corresponding 
figures  for  agriculture.  (The  number  of  persons  engaged  in  the  produc- 
tion of  minerals  in  1909  was  taken  from  Table  8,  Vol.  XI,  Thirteenth 
Census  Reports.  The  United  States  total  was  reduced  by  deducting 
974,  representing  certain  persons  who  could  not  be  distributed  by  states.) 

COMPUTATION   OF   PERCENTAGES   IN   TABLE   64. 

In  compiling  this  table,  two  sets  of  percentages,  one  for  increases 
and  one  for  decreases,  have  been  computed  for  each  set  of  items  for 
which  some  divisions  or  states  showed  increases  and  others  showed 
decreases  during  the  decade  1 910-1920.  It  would  be  impossible,  of 
course,  to  compute,  from  a  decrease  in  a  given  division  or  state  and  an 


212  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

increase  in  the  United  States  as  a  whole,  a  percentage  representing  the 
proportion  which  the  decrease  in  the  giv^en  division  or  state  formed  of 
the  increase  in  the  United  States.  Moreover,  it  would  have  been  bad 
practice  to  base  the  percentages  for  those  divisions  and  states  which 
showed  increases  on  the  net  increase  for  the  United  States  as  a  whole, 
since  if  this  had  been  done  the  sum  of  the  percentages  of  increase  would 
have  been  more  than  loo. 

Accordingly,  the  division  percentages  of  increase  and  decrease  are 
based,  respectively,  on  the  total  increase  in  those  divisions  in  which 
increases  took  place  and  the  total  decrease  in  those  divisions  in  which 
decreases  took  place;  and  the  state  percentages  of  increase  and  decrease 
are  based,  respectively,  on  the  total  increase  in  those  states  in  which 
increases  occurred  and  the  total  decrease  in  those  states  in  which  de- 
creases occurred.  Thus  the  percentages  of  increase  and  the  percentages 
of  decrease  total  separatel}'  to  approximately  loo.  A  percentage  for  a 
given  division  does  not,  however,  necessarily  represent  the  sum  of  the 
percentages  for  the  states  composing  that  division,  since  in  some  cases 
certain  states  mthin  a  division  show  increases  and  others  show  decreases, 
so  that  the  net  increase  or  decrease  for  the  division  does  not  represent 
the  sum  of  the  increases  for  those  states  which  showed  increases,  or  of 
the  decreases  for  those  states  which  showed  decreases.  IMoreover,  the 
United  States  totals  on  which  the  division  percentages  are  based  are  not 
the  same  as  those  on  which  the  state  percentages  are  based,  so  that, 
even  if  all  the  states  in  a  division  show  increases  or  all  show  decreases, 
the  sum  of  the  state  percentages  is  not  necessarily  the  same  as  the  division 
percentage,  which  has  been  computed  on  a  different  base.  To  illustrate: 
Suppose  that  in  half  the  states  the  number  of  persons  engaged  in  agri- 
culture increased,  the  aggregate  increase  being  1,000,000,  and  that  in 
the  remaining  states  there  were  decreases  aggregating  2,000,000.  The 
state  percentages  for  increase  and  decrease  would,  therefore,  be  computed 
on  the  bases  of  1,000,000  and  2,000,000,  respectively.  Suppose,  further, 
that  the  states  which  showed  increases  were  so  grouped  that  in,  say,  five 
divisions  the  increases  were  exactly  offset  by  decreases,  while  in  the  re- 
maining four  divisions  there  would  be  aggregate  decreases  of  1,000,000 
with  no  increases.  In  this  event  the  division  percentages  for  decrease 
would  be  based  on  i  ,000,000  and  would  refer  to  only  four  of  the  divisions, 
while  for  the  remaining  five  there  would  be  no  percentages  for  either 
increase  or  decrease. 


Appendix  F, 

COMPUTATION  OF  AVERAGE  NUMBERS  OF  CHILDREN  PER 
NATIVE  AND  FOREIGN  WHITE  MOTHER. 

The  average  numbers  of  children  per  native  and  foreign  white  mother 
in  the  birth-registration  area,  calculated  for  those  mothers  who  gave 
birth  to  children  in  1919,  are  as  follows: 

Average  number  of  children  ever  bom: 

Per  native  white  mother 3.2 

Per  foreign  white  mother 4.  o 

Average  number  of  surviving  children: 

Per  native  white  mother 2.8 

Per  foreign  white  mother 3.  4 

The  data  employed  in  the  calculation  of  these  averages  have  been 
taken  from  the  Census  Bureau's  annual  report,  Birth  Statistics,  19 19. 
The  figures  relate  to  the  birth-registration  area,  which  in  that  year  com- 
prised 22  states — Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts, 
Connecticut,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Michigan,  Wis- 
consin, Minnesota,  Kansas,  Utah,  Washington,  Oregon,  California,  Mary- 
land, Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Kentucky — and  the 
District  of  Columbia,  with  nearly  three-fifths  of  the  total  population  of 
the  United  States. 

AVERAGE   NUMBER   OF  CHILDREN   EVER   BORN  PER   NATIVE    WHITE   MOTHER. 

Total  births  to  native  white  mothers  in  1919 912 ,  792 

Deduct  number  in  connection  with  which  no  data  as  to  total  num- 
ber of  children  ever  bom  were  given 47 ,  041 

Number  of  births  in  connection  with  which  total  number  of  chil- 
dren ever  bom  was  stated 865 ,751 

Divide  by  1.0122  to  account  for  plural  births  ' 855, 316 

Total  number  of  children  ever  bom  to  these  mothers 2 ,  722 ,  296 

Average  number  of  children  ever  bom  per  native  white  mother 
(2,722,296-^855,316) 3.2 

AVERAGE   NUMBER   OF   SURVIVING  CHILDREN   PER   NATIVE   WHITE   MOTHER. 

Total  births  to  native  white  mothers  in  1919 912 ,  792 

Deduct  number  in  connection  with  which  no  data  as  to  total  num- 
ber of  children  now  living  ^  were  given 70, 707 

Number  of  births  in  connection  with  which  total  number  of  chil- 
dren now  living  was  stated 842 ,  085 

Divide  by  1.0122  to  account  for  plural  births  ' 831,935 

Total  number  of  children  ever  bom  to  these  mothers  and  now 

living^ 2,363,396 

Average  number  of  surviving  children  per  native  white  mother 

(2 -363. 396-^83 1, 93  5) 2.8 

■  In  1919  plural  births  averaged  12.2  cases  per  1,000  mothers  in  the  registration  area, 
for  all  races;  not  computed  by  race  and  nativity.  As  exceedingly  few  c;ises  are  of 
triplets,  quadruplets,  etc.,  tliere  is  only  a  very  slight  departure  from  accuracy  in  the 
assumption  that  the  number  of  children  bom  is  1.0122  times  the  number  of  mothers. 

^  The  phrase  "now  living"  refers  to  the  time  at  which  the  last  birth  occiured. 

213 


214  INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 

AVERAGE   NUMBER   OF  CHILDREN    EVER   BORN   PER   FOREIGN   WHITE   MOTHER. 

Total  births  to  foreign  wliite  motliers  in  iqiq 354.95*^ 

Deduct  number  in  connection  with  which  no  data  as  to  total 
number  of  children  ever  born  were  given 47.4i<> 

Number  of  births  in  connection  with  which  total  number  of  chil- 
dren ever  bom  was  stated 307 ,  540 

■    Divide  by  1.0122  to  account  for  plural  births  ' 303.833 

Total  number  of  children  ever  born  to  these  mothers 1,226,471 

Average  number  of  children  ever  bom  per  foreign  white  mother 

(1,226,471-^-303,833) 4-0 

AVERAGE   NUMBER   OF   SURVIVING   CHILDREN   PER   FOREIGN   WHITE   MOTHER. 

Total  births  to  foreign  white  mothers  in  1919 354. 95^ 

Deduct  number  in  connection  with  which  no  data  as  to  total 
number  of  children  now  living-  were  given 56,323 

Number  of  births  in  connection  with  which  total  number  of  chil- 
dren now  living  was  stated 298 ,  633 

Divide  by  1.0122  to  account  for  plural  births  ' 295,031 

Total  number  of  children  ever  bom  to  these  mothers  and  now 

living  2 1 ,  008 ,  689 

Average  number  of  surviving  children  per  foreign  white  mother 

(1,008,689-^-295,031) 3-4 

1  In  1919  plural  births  averaged  12.2  cases  per  1,000  mothers  in  the  registration  area, 
for  all  races;  not  computed  by  race  and  nativity.  As  exceedingly  few  cases  are  of 
triplets,  quadruplets,  etc.,  there  is  only  a  very  slight  departure  from  accuracy  in  the 
assumption  that  the  number  of  children  bom  is  1.0122  times  the  number  of  mothers. 

2 The  Dhrase  "now  living"  refers  to  the  time  at  which  the  last  birth  occurred. 


DETAILED  TABLES 

215 


216 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Table  50.- 


-NUMBER  AND   AgGHEGATE   POPULATION    OF   CoUNTIES   OR   EQUIVALENT 

Divisions  and   States: 


DIVISION  AND  STATE. 


1920 


Per  cent 

Counties 

in  which  popu- 

lation 

decreased  dur- 

popula- 
tion of  de- 

Total 

ing  decade  1910-1920. 

Total 
population. 

number 
of 

creasing 

counties 

counties. 

Number. 

Aggregate 
population. 

formed 
of  total 
popula- 
tion. 

105,710,620 

3,005 

1,086 

18,527,979 

17.5 

7,400,909 

67 

22 

553,909 

7.5 

22,261,144 

150 

56 

1,988,767 

8.9 

21,475,543 

436 

224 

4,660,425 

21.7 

12,544,249 

619 

242 

3, 643, 191 

29.0 

13,990,272 

558 

134 

1,837,007 

13.1 

8,893,307 

364 

163 

3, 015. 458 

33.9 

10, 242, 224 

469 

162 

2,185,006 

21.3 

3,336,101 

269 

48 

327,413 

9.8 

5, 566, 871 

133 

35 

316, 803 

5.7 

768,014 

10 

5 

135,619 

17.7 

443,083 

10 

5 

167, 083 

37.7 

352,428 

14 

8 

192,436 

54.6 

3,852,356 

14 

3 

33,839 

0.9 

604,397 

5 

1 

24,932 

4.1 

1,380,631 
10,385,227 

8 
62 

32 

1,336,299 

12.9 

3,155,900 

21 

3 

77,250 

2.4 

8,720,017 

67 

21 

575,218 

6.6 

5,759,394 

88 

39 

967,760 

16.8 

2,930,390 

92 

64 

1,238,271 

42.3 

6,485.280 

102 

56 

1,163,8,H1 

17.9 

3,668,412 

83 

48 

962,357 

26.2 

2,632,067 

71 

17 

328, 156 

12.5 

2,  .387, 125 

86 

9 

16S,  826 

7.1 

2, 404, 021 

99 

27 

514, 739 

21.4 

3, 404, 055 

1115 

89 

1,565,036 

46.0 

646, 872 

53 

10 

118,218 

18.3 

636,547 

68 

17 

116,010 

18.2 

1,296,372 

93 

33 

392,441 

30.3 

1,769,257 

105 

57 

767,921 

43.4 

223,003 

3 

2 

74,764 

33.5 

1,449,661 

324 

12 

257,995 

17.8 

4.37,571 
2,  ,309, 187 

1 
•120 

36 

457, 585 

19.8 

1,463,701 

55 

15 

231,263 

15.8 

2,559,123 

100 

11 

107. 590 

4.2 

1,683,724 

46 

1 

21.710 

1.3 

2,895,832 

1,55 

45 

505,455 

17.5 

968,470 

54 

12 

180.639 

ia7 

2,416,630 

120 

01 

918,339 

38.0 

2, 337, 885 

95 

37 

638, 1,53 

27.3 

2,348,174 

67 

21 

571,961 

24.4 

1,790,618 

82 

44 

887,005 

49.5 

1,7.52,204 

75 

25 

438,500 

25.0 

1,798,509 

64 

27 

462, 484 

25.7 

2,028,283 

77 

26 

4.39, 5N0 

21.7 

4,663,228 

253 

84 

M4,442 

18.1 

548,  8,89 

51 

4 

37,200 

6.8 

431,866 

44 

1 

18,092 

4.2 

194, 402 

'22 

3 

18, 973 

9.8 

939, 629 

63 

15 

87, 851 

9.3 

360, 3,50 

29 

12 

119, 167 

33.1 

334. 162 
449, 396 

14 
29 

1 

9,871 

2.2 

77,407 

17 

12 

36,259 

46.8 

1,3.56,621 

39 

13 

153.994 

11.4 

7s;{,  3N9 

36 

s 

59, 562 

7.6 

3,426,861 

58 

14 

103,247 

3.0 

United  States.., 

Geographic  division.s: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central. 
West  North  Central. 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central . 
West  South  Central . 

Mountain 

Pacific 

New  England: 

Maine , 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Massachusetts , 

Rhmle  Island 

Connecticut 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York , 

New  Jersey , 

Pennsylvania , 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois , 

Michigan 

Wisconsin , 

We.st  North  Central: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

Nebraska , 

Kansas 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware , 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  CaroUna 

South  Carolina , 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  South  Central  : 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Missis.sippi 

We.st  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana , 

Oklahoma , 

Texas 

Mountain: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming , 

Colorado , 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Wa.sliington , 

Oregon , 

California 


•  Inchides  independent  city  of  St.  Louis. 
'  Includes  independent  city  of  Baltimore. 


•  Includes  20  independent  citlc-s. 

*  Includes  lSiiidoi)endciit  cities. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


217 


Divisions    Whose    Population    Decreased    During    Preceding    Decade,    by 
1920,  1900,  1880,  and  1860. 


1000 

DIVISION  AND  STATE. 

Total 
population. 

Total 
number 

of 
counties. 

Counties  in  which  popu- 
lation decreased  dur- 
ing decade  1890-1900. 

Per  cent 
which 
popula- 
tion of  de- 
creasing 

Number. 

Aggregate 
population. 

counties 
formed 
of  total 
popula- 
tion. 

United  States 

75,994.575 

2,836 

368 

5.823,383 

7.7 

Geographic  divisions: 

New  England 

5,592,017 
15, 454, 678 
15,9,S,5,581 
10, 347, 423 
10,443,480 
7,  .547, 757 
6,532,290 
1,674,6.57 
2,416,692 

67 
149 
435 
594 
.520 
350 
400 
189 
126 

15 
39 
62 
127 
42 
22 
20 
27 
14 

331,080 

1,. 321, 320 

1,371,077 

1,528,861 

.549, 549 

389,089 

ia3, 155 

64,543 

81,709 

5.9 

8.5 

East  North  Central 

8.6 

West  North  Central 

14.8 

South  Atlantic 

5.3 

East  South  Central 

5.2 

West  South  Central 

2.8 

Mountain 

3.9 

Pacific 

3.5 

New  England: 

Maine 

694,466 
411,588 
343,641 
2,805,346 
428,556 
908,420 

7, 268, 894 
1,883,669 
6,302,115 

4,157,545 
2. 516, 462 
4.821,550 
2,420,982 
2,069,042 

1,751,394 
2,231.853 
3,106,665 
319,146 
401,570 
1,066,300 
1,470,495 

184,735 
1,188,044 

278. 718 
1, 854. 1.S4 

958,800 
1,893,810 
1,340,316 
2,216,331 

528, 542 

2,147.174 
2,020,616 
1,828,697 
1,551,270 

1,311,564 
1,381,625 
6  790,391 
3,048,710 

243,329 
161,772 

92,531 
539,700 
195, 310 
122,931 
276,749 

42,335 

518, 103 

413,536 

1,485,053 

16 
10 
14 

14 
5 

8 

61 
21 
67 

88 
92 
102 
83 
70 

82 
99 
1115 
39 
64 
90 
105 

3 

'24 

1 

M18 

55 

97 

40 

1.37 

45 

119 
96 
66 
75 

75 
59 

6  23 
243 

«24 
21 

7  14 
57 
19 
13 
27 
14 

36 
33 
57 

4 
2 
6 
2 

111.501 
36,421 

127,803 
30,832 

16.1 

New  Hampshire 

8.8 

Vermont 

37.2 

Massachusetts 

1.1 

Connecticut 

1 

22 
1 
16 

22 
14 
6 
19 

1 

24,523 

845,285 
34,507 
441,528 

566,030 
229,666 

99.156 
453,506 

22,719 

2.7 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

11.6 

New  Jersey.             

1.8 

Pennsylvania 

7.0 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

13.6 

Indiana 

9.1 

Illinois 

2.1 

Michigan 

18.7 

Wisconsin.  .                 

1.1 

West  North  Central: 

Iowa 

1 

20 

54,610 
393,002 

2.4 

Jlissouri 

12.7 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

16 
35 
55 

77,037 
492.529 
511,683 

19.2 

Nebraska 

46.2 

34.8 

South  Atlantic: 

Maryland 

3 

71,295 

6.0 

18 

195,710 

10.6 

North  Carolina 

9 

145, 881 

7.7 

Georgia 

9 
3 

10 
8 
1 
3 

4 
6 

99,816 
36,847 

160, 466 
180,395 
13,206 
35,022 

66,899 
80,602 

4.5 

Florida 

7.0 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

7.5 

Tennessee 

8.9 

Alabama ...    .             

0.7 

2.3 

5.1 

Louisiana 

5.8 

Texas 

10 

35,654 

1.2 

Idaho 

3 

1 
15 

1 

8,733 

369 

37,975 

3,158 

5.4 

Wyoming 

0.4 

Colorado 

7.0 

New  Mexico 

1.6 

Utah 

Nevada 

7 

2 
1 
11 

14,308 

6.163 
4,151 
74,395 

33.0 

Pacific: 

Washington 

1.2 

1.0 

Cahfomia 

5.0 

^  Includes  population  of  Indian  Territory  (392,060). 
'  Exclusive  of  Indian  reservations. 


'  Includes  Yellowstone  National  Park. 


218 


Table  50.- 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 

-Number  and  Aggregate  Population  of  Counties  or  Equivalent 

Divisions  and  States:  1920, 


1880 

DIVISION  AND  STATE. 

Total 
population. 

Total 
number 

of 
counties. 

Counties  in  which  popu- 
lation decreased  dur- 
ing decade  1870-1880. 

Percent 
which 
popula- 
tion of  de- 
creasing 

Number. 

Aggregate 
population. 

counties 
formed 
of  total 
popula- 
tion. 

50, 155, 783 

2,592 

82 

1,711,453 

3.4 

Geographic  divisions: 

4, 010, 529 

10, 496, 878 

11,206,668 

6, 157, 443 

7, 597, 197 

5,585,151 

3,334,220 

653, 119 

1,114,578 

67 
148 
424 
.531 
495 
351 
357 
119 
100 

14 
9 
26 
10 

4 
5 
1 
10 
3 

458,788 

351,488 

562,423 

172,899 

34,889 

85,792 

1,739 

30,709 

12, 726 

11.4 

Middle  Atlantic 

3.3 

East  North  Central           

5.0 

West  North  Central 

2.8 

0.5 

1.5 

West  South  Central 

0.1 

4.7 

Pacific 

1.1 

New  England: 

648,936 
346, 991 
332, 286 
1,783,085 
276, 531 
622,700 

5, 082, 871 
1,131,116 
4,282,891 

3,198,062 
1,978,301 
3,077,871 
1,636,937 
1,315,497 

780, 773 
1,624,615 
2,168,380 
36,909 
98,268 
452, 402 
996,096 

146,608 
934,943 
177,624 

1,512,565 
618,457 

1,399,750 
995, 577 

1,542,180 
269, 493 

1,648,690 
1,  .542, 3.59 
1,262,505 
1,131,597 

802, 525 
939,946 

16 
10 
14 

14 
5 

8 

60 
21 
67 

88 
92 
102 
>  79 
63 

78 
99 

2  115 

21 
45 
69 
104 

3 

<24 

1 

MIO 

54 

94 

33 

137 

39 

117 
94 
66 

74 

74 
58 

7 

263,958 

40.7 

4 
2 

123,617 
35,624 

37.2 

2.0 

1 

8 

35,589 
307, 818 

5.7 

Middle  Atlantic: 

6.1 

1 

1 
4 
9 

1 
11 

2 
5 

1 

43,670 

20,074 
67, 533 

183,230 
2,565 

289,021 

4,514 
109,293 
26,534 

1.0 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

0.6 

3.4 

Illinois 

6.0 

0.2 

22.0 

West  North  Central: 

0.6 

6.7 

Missouri 

1.2 

North  Dakota                              

South  Dakota. .                  

1 

203 

0.2 

1 

32,355 

3.2 

South  Atlantic: 

Maryland 

Virginia 

1 

10,292 

0.7 

3 

24,597 

1.6 

Florida           ...           

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

2 
1 
2 

12.499 

7.269 

66,024 

0.8 

Tennessee 

0.5 

Alabama 

5.2 

West  South  Central: 

Texas 

1,591,749 

39, 159 
32,610 
20,789 
194,327 
119,565 
40,440 
143, 963 
62,266 

75,116 
174,768 
864,694 

225 

11 
13 

7 
31 
12 

7 
23 
15 

25 
23 
52 

1 

1 
2 

1,739 

2,537 
3,683 

0.1 

6.5 

Idaho 

11.3 

New  Mexico 

1 

11,029 

9.2 

Utah 

2 
4 

3,046 
10,414 

2.1 

Nevada 

16.7 

Pacific: 

Washington  . 

California 

3 

12.726 

1.5 

*  Includes  1  unorganized  county. 

»  Includes  independent  city  of  St.  Louis. 

» Dakota  territory. 


*  Includes  indopendont  city  of  Baltimore. 
'  Includes  11  ludopeudeut  cities. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


219 


Divisions   Whose    Population    Decreased    During    Precedino    Decade,    by 
1900,  1880,  and  1860— Continued. 


1 

1860 

DIVISION  AND  STATE. 

Total 
population. 

Total 
miml)er 

of 
counties. 

Counties  in  which  popu- 
lation decreased  dur- 
ing decade  1850-1860. 

Percent 
which 
popula- 
tion of  de- 
creasing 

Number. 

Aggregate 
population. 

counties 
formed 
of  total 
popula- 
tion. 

United  States 

31,443,321 

2,078 

136 

2,201,019 

7.0 

Geographic  divisions: 

3,135,283 
7, 458, 985 
6,926,884 
2, 169, 832 
5,364,703 
4,020,991 
1,747,667 
174,923 
444,053 

67 
146 
403 
349 
459 
305 
236 
31 
82 

13 
9 

17 

326,670 
229,  871 
421, 8'<2 

10.4 
3.  I 
6.1 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central 

West  North  Central 

South  Atlantic 

48 

43 

4 

1 

1 

558, 363 

613, 818 

37, 176 

9,849 

3,390 

10.4 
15.3 
2  1 

East  South  Central 

West  South  Central 

Mountain 

5.6 
0.8 

Pacific 

New  England: 

Maine     

628, 279 
326, 073 
315,098 
1,231,066 
174,620 
460, 147 

3,880,735 

672,035 

2,906,215 

2,339,511 

1,-350,428 

1,711,951 

749, 113 

775, 881 

172,023 

674,913 

1,182,012 

\            3  4, 837 

28,841 
107, 206 

112,216 

687,049 

75,080 

8  1,219,630 

7  376,688 

992,622 

703,708 

1, 057, 286 

140, 424 

1,155,684 

1, 109, 801 

964,201 

791,305 

435, 450 
708, 002 

16 
10 
14 
14 
5 
8 

60 
21 
65 

88 
92 
102 
63 

58 

64 
97 
113 

1 
3 

7 
2 

36, 698 
88, 735 
190,740 
10, 497 

5.8 
27.2 
60.5 

0.9 

Vermont 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

Middle  Atlantic: 

8 

216, 818 

5.6 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

1 

15 
2 

13,053 

392,991 
28, 891 

0.4 

16.8 
2.1 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

Nebraska 

34 

41 

3 

<22 

1 

6  98 

50 

86 

30 

132 

37 

109 

84 
52 
60 

55 

48 

Kansas 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia 

Virginia 

15 
2 
5 
4 

21 
1 

17 
14 
6 
6 

155,058 
28,448 
43, 412 
121,128 
210,234 
83 

181,679 

222,008 

128, 783 

81,348 

12.7 
7.6 
4.4 
17.2 
19.9 
0.1 

15.7 
20.0 
13.4 
10.3 

West  Virginia 

North  CaroUna 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  South  Central: 

Kentuckv 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

4 

37, 176 

5.3 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

604,215 

133 

Mountain: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

8  34,277 
93, 516 

New  Mexico 

11 

1 

9,849 

10.5 

Arizona 

Utah 

40,273 
6,857 

11,594 

52, 465 

379,994 

17 
3 

19 
19 
44 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 

i                    3,390 

0.9 

«  Exclusive  of  50  counties  taken  to  form  West  Virginia  between  1860  and  1870.  Independent  cities 
counted  as  parts  of  counties  in  which  located. 

'  Fifty  counties  taken  from  Virginia  to  form  West  Virginia  between  1860  and  1870. 

8  Population  for  area  organized  in  1861  as  Colorado  territory  but  included  in  1860  in  territories  of  Kansas. 
Nebraska,  New  Mexico,  and  Ctah. 


220 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


Table  51. — Urban  Population,  Classified  in  Three  Groups,  According 

[The  percentages  of  increase  given  in  this  table  relate  to  the  several  group'!  of  cities  as  cormtiiuled  in  19S0. 

increased  by  24.9  per  cent  between  1910  and  1920,  but  in 


DIVISION  AND  ST.4TE. 


United  States  . . . 

Geographic  divisions: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central . 
West  North  Central. 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central . 
West  South  Central . 

Mountain 

Pacific 

New  England: 

Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

East  North  Centr.^l: 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia. 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mountain: 

Montana , 

Idaho 

Wyoming , 

Colorado 

New  Mexico , 

Arizona , 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington , 

Oregon , 

California 


total  territory  urban  in  1920. 


PLACES  OF   100,000  OR  MORE 
IN  1920. 


Num- 
ber of 
places. 


Population. 


292 

604 

1586 

322 

1273 

1  169 

1  260 

117 

165 


25 
27 
14 
169 
27 
30 


121 
314 

148 
93 

171 
93 

82 

59 
81 
63 
12 
14 
31 
62 

4 
18 

1 
39 
35 
55 
32 
59 
30 

51 
47 
39 
32 

41 
38 
63 
119 

17 
20 

8 
26 
12 
15 
17 

2 

35 
23 
107 


54. 304, 603 


5, 865, 073 
16,672,595 
13, 049, 272 
4, 727, 372 
4, 338, 792 
1,994,207 
2,970,829 
1,214,980 
3,471,483 


299, 569 
279, 761 
109, 976 
3,650,248 
589. 180 
936,339 

8,589,844 
2,474,936 
5,607,815 

3,677,136 
1,482,855 
4, 403, 1.53 
2,241,560 
1,244,568 

1,0.51,593 
875, 495 

1,586,903 

88,239 

101, 872 

405,306 

617,964 

120, 767 
869, 422 
437,571 
673, 984 
369, 007 
490, 370 
293,  987 
727, 859 
355,825 

633,543 
611,226 
509,317 
240,121 

290,497 

628, 163 

.539, 480 

1,512,689 

172,011 
119,037 

57, 348 
4.53, 2.'J9 

64,960 
117,527 
215,  .584 

15,254 

748, 735 

391,019 

2,331,729 


H'te- 


25.7 


16.6 
19.3 
33.6 
19.7 
a3.9 
19.2 
41.9 
24.4 
39.8 


13.1 
9.1 
10.7 
15.5 
11.8 
29.7 

18.7 
24.2 
18.1 

35.9 
27.9 
24.0 
66.2 
21.6 

20.6 
24.0 
14.0 
29.1 
33.7 
2,-..  2 
21.2 

24.4 
31.0 
32.2 
35.8 
42.4 
40.1 
22.2 
27.8 
52.9 


25.5 
28.5 
12.9 

25.8 
18.8 
59.0 
52.1 

23.6 
41.9 
31.9 
14.4 
24.5 
60.2 
23.0 
14.1 

20.8 
22.2 
51.1 


Population. 


27, 429, 326 


2,203,306 

10,549,599 

6, 775, 993 

2,131.833 

1,769.625 

694.390 

952,332 

374, 601 

1,977,647 


1,521,583 
237,595 
444,128 

6,807,810 
1,084,100 
2,657,689 

2,171,635 

314.194 

2,701,705 

1,131.312 

457, 147 

615, 280 

126, 468 

1, 097, 307 


191,601 
101, 177 

110,168 
733.826 
437.571 
287,444 


200. 616 


234, 891 
280, 693 
178,806 


387, 219 

565,' i  is" 


256,491 


118,110 


419,749 

258,288 

1,299,610 


Percent 
of  in- 
crease. 


24.9 


15.5 
17.6 
36.9 
20.0 
33.0 
1.5.8 
38.6 
22.4 
37.0 


12.9 

,5.9 

32.7 

18.9 
16.3 
15.1 

38.1 
34.5 
23.4 
95.  2 
22.3 

19.2 
46.4 
17.3 


22.6 
22.9 

26.0 
31.4 
32.2 
45.0 


4.9 
15.4 
34.8 


14.2 
62.5 


20.2 
27.3 


22.6 
21.1 
46.3 


1  The  total  number  of  places  in  certain  cla,s.ses  for  tho  United  States  as  a  whole  is  loss  than  the  sum  of 
the  numbers  shown  for  the  inilividual  states  or  divisions,  for  the  rea.son  that  each  of  three  cities  lies  in 
two  adjoining  states  and  oiu;  in  two  divisions.  Each  of  these  cities  is  counted  in  each  state  and  ouch 
division.    For  full  explanation,  see  note  1,  Table  31,  p.  50,  Vol.  1,  Fourteenth  Census  Koports. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


221 


TO  Size  of  Cities,  1920,  with  Per  Cent  of  Increase,  1910-1920. 

For  example,  the  combined  population  of  the  68  cities  which  had  100,000  inhabitants  or  more  in  1920 
1910  only  50  of  these  cities  had  100,000  inhabitants  or  more.] 


DIVISION  AND  ST.\TE. 


United  States. 


Geographic  pmsiONS: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central. 
West  North  Central. 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central. . 
West  South  Central. 

Mountain 

Pacific 


New  England: 

Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Jf  assachusetts 

Rhode  I.sland 

Coimecticut 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia. 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  CaroUna 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mount.un: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington 

Oregon 

CaliJomia 


places  of  25,000  to  100,000 
IN  1920. 


Num- 
ber. 


219 


Population. 


10,340,788 


1,699,018 

2,3.53,654 

2,681,461 

733, 831 

1,119,452 

367, 926 

607,225 

176,623 

601,598 


127,041 
106,763 


1,028,383 
167,406 
269,425 

755,097 
718,899 
879,658 

535,822 
5.59,351 
700,310 
583, 309 
302,669 

9.8,917 
285,053 
147, 472 


25,202 
54,948 
122, 239 


57,901 


201,907 
173, 862 
156, 609 
105,481 
219,920 
203,772 

127,972 
135,713 
104,241 


94,012 

43,874 

193,647 

275, 692 

41,611 


73, 155 


29, 053 
32,804 


150, 194 
'45i,'404' 


Per  cent 
of  in- 
crease. 


20.2 
24.3 
43.5 
23.2 
43.5 
22.6 
65.2 
16.9 
47.5 


15.9 
11.1 


19.0 
21.3 
31.4 

20.6 
30.0 
23.2 

46.6 
42.6 
29.0 

78.5 
25.4 

26.1 

30.7 

1.9 


78.8 
25.0 
27.2 


51.0 


42.3 

51.4 
54.7 
22.7 
26.3 
64.4 

6.3 
51.0 
16.3 


33.2 
56.6 
79.9 
70.8 

6.2 


160.9 
28.2 


PLACES  OF  2,.500  to  25,000 
IN  1920. 


Num- 
ber. 


>2,500 


246 

541 

1513 

301 

1242 

1158 

1243 

110 

147 


22 
25 
14 
142 
22 
21 

147 
100 
294 

1127 

181 

154 

79 

73 

56 
74 
58 
12 
13 
29 
59 

3 
15 


13.1 
'64.2' 


132 
31 

51 
30 
54 
26 

47 

143 

36 

32 

139 

36 

60 

1109 

16 
20 

8 
23 
12 
14 
15 

2 

30 
22 
95 


Population. 


16, 534, 489 


1,962,749 

3,769,342 

3,  .591, 818 

1,861,708 

1,449,715 

931,891 

1,411,272 

663, 7.56 

892, 238 


172,  .528 
172,998 
109,976 
1,100,282 
184, 179 
222,786 

1,026,937 

671,937 

2,070,468 

969,679 
609,310 
1,001,138 
526,939 
4»1,752 

337,396 
463,974 
342,124 
88,239 
76,670 
158, 757 
394,548 

10,599 
77,695 


184,633 
195, 145 
333, 761 

188,506 
307,323 
152,0.53 

270,680 
194,820 
226,270 
240, 121 

196,4.85 
197,070 
34.5, 8:53 

671,884 

130,400 
119,037 
57, 343 
123,613 
64,960 
.88, 474 
64,670 
1,5,254 

178,792 
132,731 
580,715 


Percent 
of  in- 
crease. 


23.0 


14.7 
21.0 
21.6 
18.1 
28.3 

2a  5 

3.5.8 
27.7 
41.4 


11.1 
7.8 
10.7 
16.0 
11.8 
22.1 

16.4 
32.4 
20.0 

26.4 
14.2 
24.8 
19.2 
18.8 

21.7 
15.5 
9.7 
29.1 
23.4 
28.6 
19.1 

9.6 
16.0 


18.3 
35.3 
34.1 
22.0 
27.7 
39.8 

16.5 
26.5 
30.0 
12.9 

22.6 

21.8 
49.3 
38.4 

30.4 
41.9 
31.9 
19.8 
24.5 
42.2 
13.5 
14.1 

23.7 
24.4 
53.0 


222 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


Table  52. — Population*  ix  Cities  Having  25,000  Inhabitants  or  More  in  1920, 

States:  1920 


DmaON  AND  STATE. 


United  States. 


Geographic  divisions: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central.. 
"West  North  Central . 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central.. 
West  South  Central. 

Mountain 

Pacific 


New  England: 

Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island , 

Connecticut , 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York , 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

Indiana 

lUinois 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia. 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

West  south  Central: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mountain: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 


cities  of  25,000  AND  OVEB. 


1920 


37,770,114 


3,902,324 
12,9a3,2,T3 
9, 457, 454 
2, 865, 6&4 
2,889,077 
1,062,316 
1,559,557 
551,224 
2,579,245 


127,041 
106,763 


2,549,966 
405,001 
713, 553 

7,562,907 
1,802,999 
3,537,347 

2, 707, 457 

873, 545 

3,402,015 

1,714,621 

759,816 

714, 197 

411,521 

1,244,779 


2.-1, 202 
246, 549 
223, 416 

110,168 
791,727 
437, 571 
489, 351 

173. 862 
156,609 
105, 481 
420,536 
203,772 

362. 863 
416, 406 
283,047 


1910 


29,746,272 


3,319,991 
10,863,102 
6,817,514 
2,371,982 
2,110,337 

899,744 
1,054,553 

457,195 
1,8.51,854 


109, 621 
96,068 


2,212,358 
362,329 
539,615 

6,354,006 
1,485,380 
3,023,716 

1,937,855 
625,839 

2,732,354 
906,317 
615, 149 

594,618 

304,514 

1,080,087 


14,094 
200,204 
178,465 

87,411 
596,831 
331,069 
340, 175 
114,838 
101,224 

8.5, 9-17 
328,908 
123,934 

344,3.57 
333,045 
222,342 


94,012 
431,093 
193, 647 
840,805 

41,611 


329,646 


29,0.V1 
150,914 


569, 943 

258, 288 

1,751,014 


70,  .599 
367,090 
107,665 
509,199 

39,165 


Increase:  1910-1920. 


Number.       Per  cent. 


8,023,842 


288,539 


11,1.34 
118.. 3.57 


475,233 

213,251 

1,163,370 


582,333 

2,040,151 

2,639,940 

493,682 

778, 740 

162, 572 

505,004 

94,029 

727,391 


17,420 
10,695 


337,608 
42,672 
173,938 

1,208,901 
317,619 
513,631 

769, 602 
247,706 
669, 661 
808,304 
144,667 

119,579 
107,007 
164,692 


11,108 
46,345 
44,951 

22,757 

194,896 

106,502 

149, 176 

59,024 

55,385 

19,534 

91,628 

79,838 

18,506 
83,  .361 
60,705 


23,413 

64,003 

8.5,982 

331,606 

2,446 


41, 107 


17,919 
32,557 


94,710 

45,037 

587,644 


27.0 


17.5 
18.8 
,38.7 
20.8 
36.9 
18.1 
47.9 
20.6 
39.3 


15.9 
11.1 


15.3 
11.8 
32.2 

19.0 
21.4 
17.0 

39.7 
39.6 
24.5 
89.2 
23.5 

20.1 
;i.5.1 
15.2 


78.8 
23.1 
25.2 

26.0 
32.7 
32.2 
43.9 
51. 4 
54.7 
22.7 
27.9 
64.4 

.5.4 
25.0 
27.3 


33.2 
17.4 
79.9 

6.5.1 

6.2 


14.2 


160.9 
27.5 


II'.  9 
21.  1 
50.6 


'  A  minus  sign  ( — )  denotes  decrease. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


223 


AND  Outside  Such  Cities,  with  Increase  or  Decrease,  by  Divisions  and 
AND  1910. 

more  in /.wo,  and  to  those  cities  having  under  25,000  inhabitants  !rt /S^O,  together  with  the  rural  territory 
itants  or  more  in  1920  was  greater  than  the  combined  population  of  the  cities  which  had  25,000  inhab- 
1910  and  1920.1 


DIVISION  AND  STATE. 


United  States. 


Geographic  divisions: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central . , 
West  North  Central. 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central . . 
West  South  Central . 

Mountain 

Pacific 


New  England: 

Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia. 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolmti 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  Solith  Central: 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mountain: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 


cities  under  25,000  and  rural  communities. 


1920 


67, 940, 506 


498, 585 
357,  891 
018, 089 
678, 585 
101, 195 
830,991 
682,667 
784,877 
987, 626 


640, 973 
336, 320 
352, 428 
362,390 
199,396 
667,078 

822. 320 
352, 901 
182, 670 

051,937 
0.56, 845 
083, 265 
953, 791 
872, 251 

672, 928 
992,  .500 
1.59, 276 
646, 872 
611, 345 
,  049, 823 
,  545, 841 

112, 835 
657, 934 


819, 836 
289, 839 
402, 514 
578, 243 
475,296 
764, 698 

0.-)3, 767 
921, 479 
065, 127 
790,618 

658, 192 
367, 416 
834,636 
822,423 

507, 278 
431,866 
194, 402 
609,983 
360, 350 
305.109 
298, 482 
77,407 

786,678 
.525, 101 
,675,847 


1910 


62, 225, 994 


3, 232, 690 
8, 452, 790 

11,433,107 
9, 265, 939 

10, 084,  558 
7, 510, 157 
7, 729, 981 
2, 176,  322 
2. 340, 450 


632, 750 
334,504 
355, 956 
1,154,0.58 
180, 281 
575, 141 

2,759.608 
1,051,787 
4,641,395 

2, 829, 266 
2,075,a37 
2, 906, 237 
l,903,a56 
1,718,711 

1,481,090 

1,920,257 

2, 213, 248 

577, 056 

.569,  794 

992, 010 

1,512,484 

114,911 

698, 515 


1,721,437 
1,106,281 
2,105,063 
1,429,4.53 
2, 280, 213 
628, 685 

1,945,  ,548 
1,851,744 
1,91.5,7.51 
1,797.114 

1,503,850 
1,289,298 
1,549.490 
3, 387, 343 

336, 888 
325,594 
145, 965 
510, 485 
327, 301 
193, 220 
254,994 
81,875 

666, 757 

4.59. 514 

1,214,179 


Increase  or  decrease: ' 
1010-1920. 


Number. 


5, 714, 512 


Per  cent. 


265, 895 
905,101 
584, 982 
412,646 
1,016,637 
320,834 
952,686 
008, 555 
647, 176 


8,223 

1,816 

-3, 528 

148, 332 

19, 115 

91, 937 

62, 712 
301.114 
.541, 275 

222, 671 
-18,192 
177,028 
49, 935 
1.53,  .540 

191,838 
72,243 
-53, 972 
69, 816 
41,551 
.57, 813 
33, 357 

-2,076 
-40,581 


98,399 
183,558 
297, 451 
148, 790 
19.5,083 
136,013 

108, 219 
69, 735 
149, 376 
-6,496 

1.54, 342 

78, 118 

285, 146 

435,080 

170.390 

106, 272 
48,437 
99,498 
33,049 

111,889 
43,488 

-4,468 

119,921 
65.587 
461,668 


9.2 


8.2 
10.7 

5.1 

4.5 
10.1 

4.3 
12.3 
28.0 
27.7 


1.3 
0.5 
-1.0 
12.9 
10.6 
16.0 

2.3 
28.6 
11.7 

7.9 
-0.9 
6.1 
2.6 
8.9 

13.0 

3.8 

-2.4 

12.1 
7.3 
.5.8 
2.2 

-1.8 
-5.8 


5.7 
16.6 
14.1 
10.4 

8.6 
21.6 

5.6 

3.8 

7.8 

-0.4 

10.3 
6.1 

18.4 
12.8 

.50.6 
32.6 
33.2 
19.5 
10.1 
57.9 
17.1 
—5.5 

18.0 
14.3 
38.0 


224 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 


Table  53. — Increase  ix  PopuLATioNf,  by  Color,  Nativity, 
[A  minus  sign  (— )  denotes  decrease.! 


DrVTSION  AND  STATE. 


United  States... 

Geographic  divisions: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central.. 
West  North  Central. 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central.. 
West  South  Central.. 

Mountain 

Pacific 

New  England: 

Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

East  North  Central 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia 

Virginia 

AVest  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carohna 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

I>ouisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mountain  : 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington 

Oregon 

Caliiornia. 


total  increase. 


Number. 


13, 738, 354 


848,228 
2, 945, 252 
3, 224, 922 

906, 328 
1, 795, 377 

483,406 
1, 457, 690 

702,584 
1, 374,  567 


25,643 
12,  511 

—3, 528 

485,940 

61, 787 

265, 875 

,271,613 
618,  733 
,054,906 

992, 273 
229, 514 
846,689 
858,  239 
298,207 

311,417 
179, 250 
110,  720 
69,  816 
52, 659 
104, 158 
78,308 

20,681 
154, 315 
106,502 
217,  575 
242,  582 
352,  836 
168,  324 
286,711 
215,  851 

126,725 
153,096 
210,  081 
-6,496 

177,  755 
142,  121 
371,  128 
766,6)J6 

172,836 
106,  272 

48,  437 
140,605 

33,049 
129,808 

76,  045 
- 1,  468 

214,631 

110,624 

,  049, 312 


Per 
cent. 


14.9 


12.9 
15.2 
17.7 

7.8 
14.7 

5.7 
16.6 
26.7 
32.8 


3.5 
2.9 
-1.0 
14.4 
11.4 
23.9 

14.0 
24.4 
13.8 

20.8 
8.5 
15.0 
30.5 
12.8 

15.0 
8.1 
3.4 

12.1 
9.0 
8.7 
4.6 

10.2 
11.9 
32.2 
12.0 
19.9 
16.0 
11.1 
11.0 
28.7 

5.5 
7.0 

9.8 
-0.4 

11.3 

8.6 

22.4 

19.7 

46.0 
32.6 
33.2 
17.6 
10.1 
63.5 
20.4 
-5.5 

18.8 
16.4 
44.1 


NATIVE  white  OF 
NATIVE  parentage. 


Number. 


8, 933, 382 


189,730 
1, 168, 051 
2,038,402 

951, 861 
1, 438, 211 

640,290 
1, 192, 336 

535,884 

778, 617 


873 
-4, 719 
-1,057 
127, 344 
13, 732 
53,557 

437,941 

202,766 
527, 344 

635,863 
199,456 
466,008 
445,606 
291,469 

252,546 
225,027 
149, 101 
45,505 
62,946 
114, 989 
101, 747 

12,067 
126, 461 

72, 777 
209,256 
190,  750 
279,485 
137,448 
251, 639 
158,328 

175, 940 

178, 151 

216, 670 

69,529 

149, 183 
165, 137 
368,704 
509,312 

113,676 
90,653 
42,188 

127,  905 
17,708 
68,677 
74,118 
959 

126,320 

80,875 

571,422 


Per 
cent. 


7.3 
13.8 
20.9 
14.6 
19.6 
11.7 
20.7 
36.5 
36.9 


a2 

-2.0 
-0.5 

11.5 
8.6 

13.5 

13.6 

20.1 
12.5 

21.0 
9.4 
17.9 
36.4 
38.2 

43.9 
17.3 

6.2 
28.0 
25.6 
17.9 

8.4 

9.4 
16.4 
43.7 
15.8 
18.3 
18.8 
20.8 
18.1 
42.3 

9.4 
10.8 
18.4 

9.2 

13.8 
21.3 
28.1 
19.6 

70.1 
44.5 
52.3 
26.9 

6.9 
83.3 
43.2 

2.7 

21.6 
19.4 
61.6 


native  white  of 
foreign  parentaob. 


Number. 


2,778,228 


445,775 
1, 284, 875 

593,677 
23,423 
79,192 

-8,431 
51, 767 
81,123 

226,827 


Per 
cent. 


21.5 


30  5 
31.2 
17.2 
1  1 
23.9 
-6.8 
14.2 
21.9 
34.5 


12,695 

17.3 

13, 438 

19.9 

2,593 

6.6 

246,  438 

29.1 

38,390 

26.6 

132,221 

45.8 

602,246 

26.9 

253,047 

43.9 

429,582 

33.2 

166,976 

24.9 

16,058 

7.6 

234,881 

19.1 

163,969 

26.8 

11,793 

1.6 

40,666 

6.1 

-18,  831 

-4.8 

-11.963 

-3.8 

23,919 

13.3 

-1,704 

-1.2 

-2, 722 

-1.2 

-5,942 

-3.5 

5,722 

32.6 

12,882 

9.9 

8,607 

32.5 

8,901 

41.2 

21,218 

59.9 

1,851 

47.6 

1,266 

22.0 

3,139 

23.7 

15,606 

77.5 

-10,  592 

-13.8 

-149 

-a  7 

1,924 

10.9 

386 

4.2 

643 

3.5 

-1,373 

-2.0 

3,206 

6.4 

49,291 

21.7 

33,312 

48.6 

7,!»45 

19.6 

5,483 

27.8 

15,312 

13.3 

4,455 

30.9 

13,417 

51.4 

1,918 

2.6 

-619 

-5.0 

39,773 

22.  7 

16,  491 

20.8 

170^563 

42.i 

DETAILED  TABLES. 


225 


AND  Parentage,  by  Divisions  and  States:  1910-1920. 

[A  minus  sign  (— )  denotes  decrease.] 


DIVISION  AN'D  .ST.\TE. 


United  States. 


Geogr.vphic  divisio.n's: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central.. 
West  North  Central. 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central.. 
West  South  Central. 

Mountain 

Pacific 


New  England: 

Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

East  Nqrth  Central: 

Ohio 

Indiana 

lUinois 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

West  North  Centr.vl: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia.. 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  CaroUna 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mountain: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 


native  white  of 
mixed  parentage. 


Number.       Percent 


1,010,139 


143, 792 
222,066 
223,102 
139, 752 
34,  569 
-3, 720 
39, 559 
59,122 
151,  897 


14,916 
9,031 
1,318 
73,332 
13, 892 
26,303 

108,155 
5t,95o 
58,956 

32,705 
2,050 
67,091 
75,694 
45,562 

73,343 
16,631 
-4,156 
25,330 
12, 371 
12,872 
3,361 

1,334 

4,752 

5,151 

5,786 

3,616 

775 

316 

1,420 

11, 419 

-3,466 

-460 

900 

-694 

1,839 

-1,.328 

4,869 

34,179 

24,716 
9,413 
4,020 
7,368 
1,493 
6,612 
6,220 
-720 

35, 715 
17,&40 
98,642 


15.9 


24.3 
15.0 
13.5 
12.6 
20.9 
-4.1 
16.4 
23.9 
38.3 


FOREIGN-BORN  WHITE. 


Number.       Per  cent.      Number. 


24.3 
25.4 
3.7 
24.2 
27.6 
3a  7 

14.1 

27.2 
11.5 

9.3 

1.5 

13.6 

21.4 

14.2 

26.8 
7.0 
-2.0 
35.6 
10.6 
10.0 
2.8 

16.1 
7.7 
27.8 
35.4 
16.3 
15.6 
5.9 
11.4 
72.8 

-7.2 

-2.6 

6.1 

-6.7 

lai 

-3.0 
11.0 
25.4 

64.7 
26.8 
31.5 
11.0 
12.5 
41.2 
10.8 
-8.3 

33.2 
31.4 
42.4 


367, 209 


56,268 

86,396 

156, 059 

-241, 270 

25,  365 

-14,918 

110,574 

16, 315 

172, 420 


-2,784 
-5, 325 
-5, 335 

26,484 
-4,526 

47,754 

56,840 

80,425 

-50,  869 

81,  452 

-8,454 

4,391 

131,111 

-52,  m 

-56,846 
-47,  837 
-42,  870 
-24, 655 
-IS,  237 
—26,  213 
-24,612 

2,390 
-1,997 
4,197 
4,157 
4,834 
1,157 
347 
1,114 
9,166 

-9, 273 
-2,  981 
-1,294 
-1,370 

-2,934 

-6,911 

-116 

120,535 

1,976 
-1,464 
-1,863 
-9,  897 
6,423 
31,  275 
-6,  938 
-3, 197 

8,858 

-850 

104,  412 


8.1 

1.8 

5.1 

-15.0 

8.7 

-17.2 

31.7 

3.7 

20.0 


-2.5 
-5.5 
-10.7 
2.5 
-2.5 
14.5 

2.1 
12.2 
-3.5 

13.6 
-5.3 

0.4 

22.0 

-10.2 

-10.5 
-17.5 

-18.7 
-15.8 
-18.1 
-14.9 
-18.2 

13.7 
-1.9 

17.2 

15.6 
8.5 

19.5 
5.7 
7.4 

27.1 

-23.2 

-16.1 

-6.8 

-14.6 

-17.4 

-13.3 

-0.3 

50.2 

2.2 
-3.6 
-6.9 

-7.8 

28.4 

66.8 

-10.9 

-17.8 

3.7 
-0.8 
31.8 


635,308 


12,  745 

182,313 

213, 718 

35,8.59 

212, 632 

-128,981 

79,153 

9,334 

18,595 


-53 

57 

-1,049 

7,411 

507 

5,872 

64,292 
27,372 
90,649 

74,735 
20,490 
73, 225 
42,967 
2,301 

1,725 
4,032 
20,789 
-150 
15 
5,553 
3,895 

-846 
12,229 
15,520 
18, 921 
22,172 
65,564 
28,876 
29,378 
20,818 

-2.5, 718 
-21,  330 
-7, 630 
-74,303 

29,329 

-13,617 

11,796 

51,645 

-176 
269 
—860 
-135 
4,105 
5,996 
302 
-167 

825 

652 

17,118 


Per 
cent. 


6.5 


19.2 
43.6 
71.0 
14.8 

5.2 
-4.9 

4.0 
43.5 
63.7 


-.3.9 
10.1 
-64.7 
19.5 
5.3 
38.7 

47.9 
30.5 
46.7 

67.1 

34.0 

67.1 

251.0 

79.3 

24.4 

26.9 

13.2 

-24  3 

1.8 
72.2 

7.2 

-2.7 
5.3 
16.4 
2.8 
34.6 
9.4 
3.5 
2.5 
6.7 

-9.8 
-4.5 
-0.8 
-7.4 

6.6 

-1.9 

8.6 

7.5 

-9.6 
41.3 

-38.5 
-1.2 
252.1 
298.5 
26.4 

-3-2.6 

13.6 
43.7 
79.1 


107°— 22- 


-15 


226 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 


Table  54. — Urban  and  Rural  Population,  by  Color  and 

[The  percentages  of  increase  in  this  table  represent  the  grow  th  of  the  urban  and  rural  population,  respective- 
for  the  reason  that  certain  places,  by  reason  of  the  growth  or  decline  in  their  population,  passed  from  the 
between  1910  and  1920  in  the  total  territory  urban  in  1920  w  as  25.7,  and  the  corresponding  percentage  for 

[A  minus  sign  (  — )  denotes  decrease.] 


UKBAN  POPULATION. 

DIVISION,  STATE,  AND  CENSUS  YEAR. 

Total.i 

White. 

Negro. 

Native. 

Foreign-born. 

United  States: 

1920 

54,304,603 

42, 166, 120 

28.8 

40,283,101 

29, 846, 561 

34.9 

10,356,983 

9,532,733 

8.6 

3.  .559, 473 

1910 

2,684,797 

Per  cent  of  increase 

32.6 

GEOGRAPHIC  DIVISIONS. 

New  England: 

1920 

5,865,073 

4,998,082 

17.3 

16,072,595 

13,723,373 

21.5 

13,049,272 

9,617,271 

35.7 

4,727,372 

3, 873, 716 

22.0 

4,338,792 

3,092,153 

40.3 

1,994,207 

1, 574, 229 

26.7 

2,970,829 

1,957,456 

51.8 

1,214,980 

947,511 

28.2 

3,471,483 

2,382,329 

45.7 

4,147,230 

3,363,394 

23.3 

11,901,974 

9,324,444 

27.6 

10,080,910 

7,192,361 

40.2 

3,903,214 

3,074,396 

27.0 

2,969,600 

1,989,234 

49.3 

1,374,153 

1,006,808 

36.5 

2,208,154 

1,378,925 

60.1 

1,009,436 

750,960 

34.4 

2,668,430 

1,766,039 

51.1 

1,641,728 

1,573,954 

4.3 

4,239,681 

4,049,477 

4.7 

2,511,626 

2, 189, 291 

14.7 

607,384 

631,696 

-3.8 

222,488 

191,756 

16.0 

48,407 
57,932 
-16.4 

220,460 

136,808 

6L1 

181,439 

173,331 

4.7 

683,770 

528,488 

29.4 

71,416 

1910 

56,445 

26.5 

Middle  Atlantic: 

1920 

517,432 

1910 

339, 246 

Per  cent  of  increase 

52.5 

East  North  Central: 

1920 

448,873 

1910 

230,542 

Per  cent  of  increase 

94.7 

West  North  Central: 

1920 

212,591 

1910 

164, 301 

Per  cent  of  increase 

29.4 

South  Atlantic: 

1920 

1,144,371 

1910 

909,520 

Per  cent  of  increase 

25.8 

East  South  Central: 

1920 

571, 316 

1910 

509,097 

12.2 

West  South  Central: 

1920 

535, -282 

1910 

435,838 

22.8 

Mountain: 

1920 

16,678 

1910 

15,446 

Per  cent  of  increase 

8.0 

Padflc: 

1920 

41,514 

1910 

24,362 

^0.4 

New  England. 
Maine: 

1920 

299,569 

262, 248 

14.2 

279,761 

25.5,099 

9.7 

109,976 
98,917 

n.2 

3,650,248 

3,125,367 

16.8 

589, 180 

524, 654 

12.3 

936,339 

731,797 

2}-;.o 

239,156 

203,508 

17.5 

207,774 

179,490 

15.8 

91, 597 

77,337 

18.4 

2,558,510 

2,078,565 

23.1 

407,412 

339,000 

20.0 

642, 781 

484.888 
32.6 

59, 152 

57,826 

2.3 

71,429 

75, 174 

-5.0 

18,146 
21,239 
-14.6 

1,045,106 

1,008,581 

3.6 

171,685 

175,405 

-•2.1 

276,210 

235,729 

17.2 

766 

1910 

792 

-3.3 

New  Hampshire: 

441 

1910 

356 

Per  cent  of  increase 

23.9 

Vermont: 

1920 

220 

1910 

326 

Per  cent  of  increase 

-32.5 

Massachusetts: 

43,624 

1910 

35, 243 

Per  cent  of  increase 

23.8 

Rhode  Island: 

1920 

9,710 

1910 

9,055 

Per  cent  of  increase 

7.2 

Connecticut: 

16,655 

1910 .       .           ... 

10, 073 

Per  cent  of  increase 

56.0 

>  Includes  Indians,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


227 


Nativity,  for  Divisions  and  States:  1920  and  1910. 

ly,  but  do  not  represent  the  actual  increase  In  the  population  of  urban  and  rural  areas  axcom-tituUd  in  19!0, 
rural  to  the  urban  or  from  the  urban  to  the  rural  class  between  1910  and  1920.  The  percentage  ofincrease 
the  total  territory  rural  in  1920  was  5.4.    (See  Table  39,  pp.  60  and  61,  Vol.  I,  Fourteenth  Census  Reports.)) 


[A  minus  sign  (  — )  denotes  decrease.] 


DIVISION,  STATE,  AND  CENSVS  YEAR. 


United  States: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. 


GEOGRAPHIC  DIVISIONS. 


New  England: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. 
Middle  Atlantic: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. 
East  North  Central: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. 
West  North  Central: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. 
South  Atlantic: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. 
East  South  Central: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. 
"West  South  Central: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. 
Mountain: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. 
Pacific: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase . 


New  Englank. 
Maine: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. . 
New  Hampshire: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. . 
Vermont: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. . 
Massachusetts: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. . 
Rhode  Island: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. . , 
Connecticut: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  ofincrease. . . 


RURAL  POPULATION. 


Total.! 


51,406,017 

49,806,146 

3.2 


1,535,836 

1,554,599 

-1.2 

5, 588, 549 

5,592,519 

-0.1 

8,426,271 

8,633,350 

-2.4 

7, 816, 877 

7, 764, 205 

0.7 

9,651,480 

9,102,742 

6.0 

6, 899, 100 

6,835,672 

0.9 

7,271,395 

6,827,078 

6.5 

2,121,121 

1,686,006 

25.8 

2,095,388 

1,809,975 

15.8 


468, 445 

480, 123 

-2.4 

ia3,322 

175,473 

-6.9 

242,452 

257,039 

-5.7 

202, 108 
241,049 
•   -10  2 

15,217 
17,956 
-15.3 

444,292 

382,959 

16.0 


White. 


Native.        I  Foreign-born. 


40,845,060  ! 
38, 539, 851 
6.0 


1,298,195 

1,302,734 

-0.3 

4,827,291 

4,729,829 

2.1 

7,634,673 

7,668,041 

-0.4 

6,950,212 

6,663,994 

4.3 

6,363,420 

5,791,814 

9.9 

4,921,455 

4, 660, 661 

5.6 

5, 448, 240 

4,993,807 

9.1 

1,750,238 

1,332,585 

31.3 

1,051,336 

1,396,386 

18.3 


419,190 

426,354 

-1.7 

143,324 

153,858 

-6.8 

215,694 

227, 100 

-5.0 

167,480 

195,311 

-14.2 

13,069 
14,861 
-12.1 

339, 438 

285,250 

19.0 


3,355,771 

3,812,812 

-12.0 


228,926 

240,432 

-4.8 

672, 894 

776, 702 

-13.4 

711,653 

877,929 

-18.9 

764, 577 

981,535 

-22.1 

93,432 

98,799 

-5.4 

23,532 
28,925 
-18.6 

238, 873 

211,951 

12.7 

271,786 

263, 579 

3.1 

350,098 

332, 960 

6.1 


48, 197 

52,307 

-7.9 

19,804 

21,384 

-7.4 

26,380 

28,622 

-7.8 

32, 428 
42, 469 
-23.6 

1,814 
2,620 
-30.8 

100,303 
93,030 

7.8 


Negro. 


6,903,658 

7,142,966 

-3.4 


7,635 
9,861 
-22.6 

82,751 

78,624 

5.2 

65,681 

70,294 

-6.6 

65,930 
78,361 
-15.9 

3,180.749 

3,202,968 

-0.7 

1,952,216 

2,143,416 

-8.9 

1,528,297 

1,548,588 

-1.3 

14,123 
6,021 
134.6 

6,276 

4,833 

29.9 


544 

571 

-4.7 

180 

208 

-13.5 

352 

1,295 

-72.8 

1,842 
2,812 
-34.5 

326 

474 

-31.2 

4,391 
4,501 
-2.4 


1  Includes  Indians,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc. 


228 


"    INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Table  54. — Ukban  and  Rural  Popxtlation,  by  Color  and 

[The  percentages  of  increase  in  this  table  represent  the  growth  of  the  urban  and  rural  popuZo^ion,  respective- 
for  the  reason  that  certain  places,  by  reason  of  the  growth  or  decline  in  their  population,  passed  from  the 
between  1910  and  1920  in  the  total  territory  urban  in  1920  was  25.7,  and  the  corresponding  percentage  for 

[.\  minus  sign  (— )  denotes  decrease.] 


DIVISION,  STATE,  AND  CENSUS  YEAR. 


Middle  Atlantic. 

New  York: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

New  Jersey: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Pennsylvania: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  Increase 

East  North  Central. 

Ohio: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Indiana: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Illinois: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Michigan: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Wisconsin: 

1920 

1010 

Per  cent  of  increase 

West  North  Central. 

Minnesota: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Iowa: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Missouri: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

North  Dakota: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

South  Dakota: 

1920 

1910 •. 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Nebraska: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Kansas: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

■  Includes 


URBAN  population. 


Total.i 


8,589,844 

7,185,494 

19.5 

2, 474, 936 

1, 907, 210 

29.8 

5, 607, 815 

4,630,669 

21.1 


3, 677, 136 

2, 665, 143 

38.0 

1, 482, 855 

1,143,835 

29.6 

4,403,153 

3, 476, 929 

26.6 

2, 241, 560 
1,327,044 


1, 244, 568 

1,004,320 

23.9 


1,051,593 

850,294 

23.7 

875, 495 

680, 054 

28.7 

1,586,903 

1,398,817 

13.4 

88,239 

63,236 

39.5 

101,872 

76, 673 

32.9 

405, 306 

310,8.^)2 

30.4 

617,964 

493, 790 

25.1 


White. 


Native.  Foreign-born. 


5, 809, 720 

4, 578,  .556 

26.9 

1,752,736 

1,291,286 

35.7 

4,339,518 

3, 454, 602 

25.6 


2, 949, 461 

2, 105, 641 

40.1 

1,291,795 

983, 630 

31.3 

3, 191, 148 

2,390,991 

33.5 

1,663,124 

967, 108 

72.0 

9S5, 382 

744,991 

32.3 


801,114 

598, 280 

33.9 

769. 731 
579, 682 

32.8 

1,303,223 

1,119,759 

16.4 

71,497 

47, 596 

50.2 

89,139 

63, 572 

40.2 

333, 195 

246. 732 
35.0 

535,315 

4  IS,  775 

27.  H 


2,585,350 

2,482,487 

4.1 

628, 402 

5-19, 274 

14.4 

1,02.5,929 

1,017,716 

0.8 


570,449 

476,502 

19.7 

118,813 

111,396 

6.7 

1, 046, 677 

997,890 

4.9 

521,554 

347, 078 

50.3 

254, 133 

256,425 

-0.9 


241,463 

245,042 

-1.5 

90,019 

90,353 

-0.4 

148,813 

173, 795 

-14.4 

16, 161 

15, 169 

6.5 

12,150 

12, 498 

-2.8 

59, 346 

57, (Xi5 

4.1 

39,  4.32 

37,8<>4 

4.3 


Negro. 


18.1,212 

117,486 

57.6 

92,328 

65,427 

41.1 

239,892 

156,333 

53.4 


155,975 
82,282 


71,813 

48,425 

48.3 

161,728 

85,538 

89.1 

55,006 
12. 156 
352.5 

4,351 
2,141 
103.2 


8,250 
6,518 


15,345 

9,786 

56.8 

134, 167 

104, 462 

2S.4 

272 

306 

-11.1 

340 

412 

-17.5 

12, 121 

6,621 
83.1 

42,096 

36, 19t) 

16.3 


Indians,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc. 


DETAILED  TABLES 


229 


Nativity,  for  Divisions  and  States:  1920  and  1910 — Continued. 

ly,  but  do  not  represent  the  actual  increase  in  the  population  of  urban  and  rural  areas  cm  constituted  in  19S0, 
rural  to  the  urban  or  from  the  urban  to  the  rural  class  between  1910  and  1920.  The  percentage  of  increase 
the  total  territory  nu-al  in  1920  was  5.4.    (See  Table  39,  pp.  60  and  61,  Vol.  I,  Fourteenth  Census  Reports.)] 

[A  minus  sijgn  (— )  denotes  decrease.] 


DmSION,   STATE,  AND   CENSUS  YEAR. 


Middle  Atlantic. 

New  York: 

1920 

1910 

Percent  of  increase 

New  Jersey: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Pennsylvania: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

East  North  Central. 

Ohio: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Indiana: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Illinois: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Michigan: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Wisconsin: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

West  North  Central. 

Minnesota: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Iowa: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Missouri: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

North  Dakota: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

South  Dakota: 

1920 

1910 

P«r  cent  of  increase 

Nebraska: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Kansas: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase . .' 

'  Includes 


RURAL  POPXnjlTION. 


Total.! 


1,  795, 3S3 

1, 928, 120 

-6.9 

680,964 

629, 957 

8.1 

3,112,202 

3, 034,  442 

2.6 


2, 082, 258 

2, 101, 978 

-0.9 

1,  447, 535 
1, 557, 041 

-7.0 

2,  082, 127 
2, 161, 662 

-3.7 

1,  426, 852 

1,  483, 129 

-3.8 

1, 387, 499 

1,  329, 540 

4.4 


1, 335,  532 

1,  225, 414 

9.0 

1, 528, 526 

1,544,717 

-1.0 

1,  817, 152 

1, 894, 518 

-4.1 

558,633 
513, 820 

8.7 

534,675 

507,215 

5.4 

891,066 

881,362 

1.1 

1,151,293 

1, 197, 159 

-3.8 


White. 


Native.  Foreign-born. 


1,  576, 195 
1, 659, 017 

-5.0 

545, 738 

496,420 

9.9 

2,  705, 358 
2,  574, 392 

5.1 


1, 943,  736 

1,952,011 

-0.4 

1,406,408 

1, 497, 009 

-6.1 

1, 901, 234 

1,983,411 

-1.7 

1,211,868 

1, 222, 615 

-0.9 

1, 171, 428 

1, 062,  995 

10.2 


1,  081, 658 

917, 937 

17.8 

1, 388, 803 

1, 356,  025 

2.4 

1, 735,  795 

1,  786, 277 

-2.8 

436,954 

366,101 

19.4 

447,617 

399,  571 

12.0 

796, 372 

757, 696 

5.1 

1, 063, 013 

1, 080, 387 

-1.6 


200,762 

246,785 

-18.6 

110,211 

108, 914 

1.2 

361,921 

421,003 

-14.0 


108,248 

120,743 

-10.3 

.32,  055 
47, 926 
-33.1 

160,274 

204,670 

-21.7 

205,081 

248,446 

-17.5 

205,995 

256,144 

-19.6 


244,701 

297,968 

-17.9 

135, 628 

183,  i:ji 

-25.9 

37, 213 
55, 101 
-32.5 

115, 342 

140,989 

-18.2 

70,241 
88,130 
-20.3 

90,306 

118,830 

-24.0 

71,146 
97,386 
-26.9 


Negro. 


13,271 
16,705 
-20.6 

24,804 

24,333 

1.9 

44,676 

37,586 

18.9 


30, 212 

29,170 

3.6 

8,997 
11,  895 
-24.4 

20,  .M6 
23,511 
-12.6 

5,076 

4,959 

2.4 

850 
759 
12,0 


559 

566 

-1.2 

3,660 
5,187 
-29.4 

44,074 
52,990 
-16.8 

195 

311 

-37.3 

492 

405 

21.5 

1,121 

1,068 

5.0 

15,829 
17,834 
-11.2 


Indians,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc. 


230 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION;   1910-1920. 


Table  54. — Urban*  and  Rural  Popilation,  by  Color  and 

[The  percentages  of  increase  in  this  table  repre^-ient  the  growth  of  the  urban  and  rural  p')j:tUation,Tespcctiye- 
tor  the  reason  that  certain  places,  by  reason  of  the  growth  or  decline  in  their  population,  pas^d  from  the 
between  1910  and  1920  in  the  total  territory  urban  in  1920  was  25.7,  and  the  corresponding  percentage  for 

[.V  minus  sign  (— )  denotes  decrease.] 


DIVTSION,  STATE,  AND    CENSUS  TEAR. 


SotJTH  Atlantic. 

Delaware: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Maryland: 

i920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

District  of  Columbia: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Virginia: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

West  Virginia: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

North  Carolina: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

South  Carolina: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Georgia: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Florida: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

East  South  Central. 

Kentucky: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Tennessee: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Alabama: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Mississippi: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

West  South  Central. 

Arkansas: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Louisiana:  i 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

1  Includes 


urban  population. 


Total.i 


120, 767 

97,085 

24.4 

869,422 

658,192 

32.1 

437,571 

331,069 

32.2 

673, 984 

476, 529 

41.4 

369,007 

228,242 
61.7 

490,370 

318, 474 

54.0 

293, 987 

224, 832 

30.8 

727,859 

538,650 

35.1 

355,825 

219,080 

62.4 


633,543 

555,442 

14.1 

611,226 

441,045 

38.6 

509,317 

370, 431 

37.5 

210, 121 

207,311 

15.8 


290,497 

202,681 

43.3 

628,163 

496, 516 

26.5 


White. 


Native. 


90,919 

71,843 

26.6 

656, 770 

477. 984 

37.4 

298,312 

211,777 

40.9 

445,247 

304, 478 
46.2 

326,671 

197, 130 

65.7 

330,852 

199, 342 

66.0 

173, 142 

119,045 

45.4 

442,170 

301,848 

46.5 

205,  517 

105,  787 

94.3 


506,508 

418,602 

21.0 

429,189 

277,833 

54.5 

301,  227 

203,145 

4S.3 

137, 229 

107,  228 

28.0 


211,  251 

137,  272 

53.9 

4(M,612 

301,918 

34.0 


Foreign-born. 


16, 815 

14,060 

19.6 

87,740 
80,598 


28,548 

24,351 

17.2 

19,226 

13,681 

40.5 

19,755 

15,653 

26.2 

4,239 

3,090 

36.9 

4,224 

4,044 

4.5 

12,432 

11,758 

5.7 

29,509 

24,515 

20.4 


21,561 
30,125 
-28.4 

11,48-1 
12,598 

-8.8 

11,183 

10,611 

5.4 

4,179 
4,598 
-9.1 


5,590 
6,054 
-7.7 

32,609 

33,257 

-1.9 


Negro. 


12,992 

11, 157 

16.4 

124,509 

99,230 

25.5 

109,966 

94, 446 

16.4 

209,134 

158, 218 

32.2 

22,484 

15,380 

46.2 

155,165 

115,975 

33.8 

116, 439 

101,702 

14.5 

273,036 

224,826 

21.4 

120,596 

88,586 

36.1 


105,393 

106,631 

-1.2 

170,464 

150,506 

13.3 

196,833 

156,603 

25.7 

98, 626 

95, 357 

3.4 


73,  592 

59, 147 

2-1.4 

190,  413 

160,845 

lit.  4 


Indians,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


231 


Nativity,  for  Divisions  and  States:  1920  and  1910 — Continued. 

ly,  but  do  not  represent  theactual  increase  in  the  population  of  urban  and  rural  areas  as  amstituUd  in  192G, 
rural  to  the  urban  or  from  the  urban  to  the  rural  class  between  1910  and  1920.  The  percentage  of  increase 
the  totaltcrritory  rural  in  1920  was  5.4.    (Sec  Table  39,  pp.  60  and  61,  Vol.1,  Fourteenth  Census  Reports.)] 

[A  minus  sign  (  — )  denotes  decrease.] 


DI\aSION,  STATE,  AND    CENSUS  YEAR. 


South  Atlantic. 

Delaware: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. . 
Maryland: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. . 
District  of  Columbia: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. . 
Virginia: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. . 
West  Virginia: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. . 
North  Carohna: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. . 
South  Carohna: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. . 
Georgia: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. . . 
Florida: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase . . , 


RURAL  POPUXATION. 


Total.i 


102,236 

105,  237 

-2.9 

580,239 
637,154 

-8.9 


White. 


Native. 


81,886 

81,839 

0.1 

445,790 

480,481 

-7.2 


Foreign-born. 


2,995 

3,360 

-10.9 

14,437 
23,576 

-38.8 


Nogro. 


17,343 
20,024 
-13.4 

119,970 

133,020 

-9.8 


East  South  Centr.\.l. 

Kentucky: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Tennessee: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase , 

Alabama: 

1920 

1910 , 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Mississippi: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

West  South  Central. 


Arkansas: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase . 
Louisiana: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase . 


,635,203 

,585,083 

3.2 

,094,694 

992,877 

10.3 

,  068, 753 

,  887, 813 

9.6 

,  389, 737 

,  290,  .568 

7.7 

,  167, 973 

,070,471 

4.7 

612, 645 

533,539 

14.8 


783, 087 
734,463 

2.8 

726, 659 

743, 744 

-1.0 

.833, 857 

767,662 

4.0 

550,497 

589,803 

-2.5 


461, 707 

371, 768 

6.6 

170,346 

159, 872 

0.9 


1, 141, 877 

1, 058, 703 

7.9 

988,653 
902,615 


1, 445, 828 

1, 295, 227 

11.6 

638,995 

5.54,062 

15.3 

1, 230, 758 

1, 114,  as2 

10.4 

389,628 

304,005 

2S.2 


1, 643, 272 

1, 569, 296 

4.7 

1, 441, 326 

1, 415, 140 

1.9 

1, 128, 143 

1, 006, 731 

12.1 

708, 714 

669,494 

5.9 


1,054,531 

976, 845 

8.0 

647,128 

587,386 

10.2 


11,559 
12, 947 
-10.7 

42,151 
41, 419 

1.8 

2,860 

2,846 

0.5 

2,177 

2,010 

8.3 

3,754 

3,314 

13.3 

13,499 

9,327 

44.7 


9,219 
9,928 
-7.1 

3,994 
5,861 
-31.9 

6,479 
8,345 
-22.4 

3,840 
4,791 
-19.8 


8,385 
10,855 
-22.8 

12,262 
18,525 
-33.8 


480,883 

512,  873 

-6.2 

63,861 

48,793 
30.9 

608,242 

581,868 

4.5 

748,230 

734, 141 

1.9 

933, 329 

952, 161 

-2.0 

208,891 

220,083 

-5.1 


130,545 

155,025 

-15.8 

281, 294 

322,532 

-12.8 

703,819 

751, 679 

-6.4 

836,  .553 

914, 130 

-8.5 


398, 628 

383,744 

3.9 

509,844 

553,029 

-7.8 


'  Includes  Indians,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc. 


232 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Table  54. — Urban  and  Rural  Population,  by  Color  and 

{The  percentages  of  increase  in  this  table  represent  the  growth  of  the  urban  and  rural  populaiion,  respective- 
for  the  reason  that  certain  planes,  by  reason  of  the  growth  or  decline  in  their  population,  passed  from  the 
between  1910  and  1920  in  the  total  territory  urban  in  1920  was  2.5.7,  and  the  corresponding  percentage  for 

[A  minus  sign  (— )  denotes  decrease.] 


DIVISION,  ST.^TE,  AND  CENSUS  YEAE. 


West  South  CENXRAi^-Continued. 


Oklahoma: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. 
Texas: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. 


MOUNTAIN. 

Montana: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. 
Idaho: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. 
Wyoming: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. 
Ck)lorado: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. 
New  Mexico: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. 
Arizona: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. 
Utah: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase . 
Nevada: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase . 

Pacific. 
Washington: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. 
Oregon: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. 
California: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase. 


URBAN  POPtJLATION. 


Total.' 


539,480 

320,155 

68.5 

1,  512, 689 

938,104 

61.2 


172,011 

133,420 

28.9 

119, 037 

69,  898 
70.3 

57,348 

43,221 

32.7 

453,259 

404,840 

IZO 

64,960 

46,571 

39.5 

117,  527 

63,260 

85.8 

215,584 

172,934 

24.7 

15,254 

13,367 

14.1 


748,735 

605,530 

23.6 

391,  019 

307, 060 

27.3 

2, 331,  729 

1, 409,  739 

58.6 


White. 


Native.  Foreign-bom. 


472, 154 

267,292 

76.6 

L  120, 137 

672,443 

66.6 


136,933 

95,875 

42.8 

106,426 

59,123 

80.0 

47,449 

33,202 

42.9 

383,167 

330,458 

16.0 

57,484 

41,498 

38.5 

84,629 

43,166 

96.1 

181, 159 

137,490 

31.8 

12,189 

10,148 

20.1 


579,856 

450,599 

28.7 

322,583 

240,025 

34.4 

1,  765, 991 

1,075,415 

64.2 


14,211 

11,406 

24.6 

168,050 

86,091 

95.2 


32,763 

34,656 

-5.5 

11,124 

9,481 

17.3 

8,437 

8,242 

2.4 

59,626 

63,698 

-6.4 

5,665 
4,090 
38.5 

28,910 

17,189 

68.2 

32,311 

33,394 

-3.2 

2,603 

2,581 

0.9 


149,686 

139,582 

7.2 

61,508 

57, 070 

7.8 

472,  576 

331,836 

42.4 


Negro. 


47,904 

36,982 

29.5 

223,373 

178,864 

24.9 


1,270 
1,455 
-12.7 

645 
426 
51.4 

833 

1,041 

-20.0 

9,364 

9,359 

0.1 

861 
795 
8.3 

2,631 
1,310 

loas 

1,006 

959 
4.9 

68 

101 

-3Z7 


6,782 
4,699 
23.0 

1,844 
1,264 
45.9 

33,888 

18,399 

84.2 


>  Includes  Indians,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


233 


Nativity,  for  Divisions  and  States:  1920  and  1910 — Continued. 

ly,  but  do  not  represent  the  actual  increase  In  the  population  of  urban  and  niral  areas  as  constituted  in  19S0, 
rural  to  the  urban  or  from  the  urban  to  the  rural  class  between  1910  and  1920.  The  percentage  of  increase 
the  total  territory  rural  in  1920  was  5.4.    (See  Table  39,  pp.  60  and  61,  Vol.  I,  Fourteenth  Census  Reports.)) 

(A  minus  sign  (— )  denotes  decrease.) 


DIVISIOK,  STATE,  AND  CENSUS  YEAR. 


West  South  Central— Continued 

Oklahoma: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Texas: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Mountain. 
Montana: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Idaho: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Wyoming: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Colorado: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

New  Mexico: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Arizona: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Utah: 

1920 

1910 

Pct  cent  of  increase 

Nevada: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

PAcmc. 
Washington: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

Oregon: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 

California: 

1920 

1910 

Per  cent  of  increase 


RURAL  POPtnJinON. 


Totai.i 


1,488,803 

1, 337, 000 

11.4 

3, 150, 539 

2, 958, 438 

6.5 


376, 878 

242, 633 

55.3 

312, 829 

255,696 

22.3 

137, 054 

102, 744 

33.4 

486, 370 

394, 184 

23.4 

295,390 

280, 730 

5.2 

216, 635 

141,094 

53.5 

233,812 

200,417 

16.7 

62,153 

68,508 

-9.3 


607,886 

536,460 

13.3 

392, 370 

365, 705 

7.3 

1, 095, 132 

907, 810 

20.6 


White. 


Native. 


1,309,072 

1, 137, 155 

15.1 

2, 437, 509 

2, 292, 421 

6.3 


303,707 

173, 061 

75.5 

280,279 

219,671 

27.6 

117,442 

79,998 

46.8 

423,982 

326,106 

30.0 

248,112 

240,442 

3.2 

128, 721 

81, 478 

58.0 

204,287 

165,700 

23.3 

43,708 

46,129 

-5.2 


489,866 

417, 315 

17.4 

344,412 

312,064 

10.4 

817,058 

667,007 

22.5 


Foreign-born. 


25,757 
28, 678 
-10.2 

192,469 

153,893 

25.1 


60,857 

56,988 

6.8 

27,839 
30,946 
-10.0 

16,  818 
18  876 
-10.9 

57, 328 

63,153 

-9.2 

23,412 

18,564 

26.1 

49,189 

29,635 

66.0 

24,144 
29,999 
-19.5 

12,199 
15, 418 
-20.9 


100,369 

101, 615 

-1.2 

40,643 
45,931 
-11.5 

209,086 

185,414 

12.8 


Negre. 


101,504 

100,630 

0.9 

518,321 

511, 185 

1.4 


379 
2.4 

275 
22i 
22.2 

542 
1,194 
-54.6 

1,954 
2,094 
-6.7 

4,872 

833 

484.9 

5,374 

699 

668.8 

440 

185 

137.8 

278 

412 

-32.5 


1,101 
1,359 
-19.0 

300 

228 

3U6 

4,875 

3,246 

50.2 


'  Includes  Indians,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc. 


234 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Table  55. — Nattv^e  Whites  op  Native  Parentage  in  Total,  Urban, 


DmSION,  STATE,  AN'D  CEV3U3  YEAR. 


COMBINED  TTBBAN  AND  RCRAL  POPULATION. 

Total. 

Native  white,  native 
parentage. 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

105,710,620 
91,972,266 

58,421,957 
49,488,575 

55.3 
53.8 

7,400,909 
6,552,681 

2,803,149 
2,613,419 

37.9 
39.9 

22,261,144 
19,315,892 

9,631,012 
8,462,961 

43.3 
43.8 

21,475,543 
18,250,621 

11,790,370 
9,751,968 

54.9 
53.4 

12,544,249 
ll,a37,921 

7,475,548 
6,523,687 

59.6 
56.1 

13.990,272 
12,194,895 

8,779,416 
7,341,205 

62.8 
60.2 

8,893,307 
8,409,901 

6,092,782 
5,452,492 

68.5 
64.8 

10,242,224 
8,784,534 

6,959,785 
5,767,449 

68.0 
65.7 

3,336,101 
2,633,517 

2,002,508 
1,468,624 

60.0 
55.7 

5,566,871 
4,192,304 

2,887,387 
2,108,770 

51.9 
50.3 

768,014 
742,371 

495,780 
494,907 

64.6 
66.7 

443,083 
430,572 

225,512 
230,231 

50.9 
53.5 

352,428 
355,956 

228,325 
229,382 

64.8 
64.4 

3,852,356 
3,366,416 

1,230,773 
1,103,429 

31.9 
32.8 

604,397 
542,610 

173,553 
159,821 

28.7 
29.5 

1,380,631 
1,114,756 

449, 206 
395,frJ9 

32.5 
35.5 

10,385,227 
9,113,614 

3,668,206 
3,230,325 

35.3 
35.4 

3,155,900 
2,537,167 

1,212,675 
1,009,909 

38.4 
39.8 

8,720,017 
7,665,111 

4,750,071 
4,222,727 

54.6 
55.1 

United  State.-;: 

1920 

1910 


GEOGRAPHIC  DR^ISIONS. 

New  England: 

1920 

1910 

Middle  Atlantic: 

1920 

1910 

East  North  Central: 

1920 

1910 

West  North  Central: 

1920 

1910 

South  Atlantic: 

1920 

1910 

East  South  Central: 

1920 

1910 

West  South  Central: 

1920 

1910 

Mountain: 

1920 

1910 

Pacific: 

1920 

1910 

New  England. 
Maine: 

1920 

1910 

New  Hampshire: 

1920 

1910 

Vermont: 

1920 

1910 

Massachusetts: 

1920 

1910 

Rhode  Island: 

1920 

1910 

Connecticut: 

1920 

1910 

Middle  Atlantic. 
New  York: 

1920 

1910 

New  Jersey: 

1920 

1910 

Pennsylvania: 

1920 

1910 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


235 


AND  Rural  Population,  by  Divisions  and  States:   1920  and  1910. 


UKBA>f  POPULATION. 

RiniAL  POPULATION. 

Per  cent 
urban  in 
total  pop- 
ulation. 

Native  white,  native 
parentage. 

Native  white,  native 
parentage. 

Total. 

Total 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

54,304,603 
42, 166, 120 

24,556,729 
17,621,230 

45.2 
41.8 

51,406,017 
49, 806, 146 

33,865,228 
31,867,345 

65.9 
64.0 

51.4 
45.8 

1 
2 

5,865,073 
4,998,082 

1,867,235 
1,619,070 

31.8 
32.4 

1,535,836 
1,554,599 

935,914 
994,349 

60.9 
64.0 

79.2 
76.3 

3 

4 

16,672,595 
13,723,373 

5,976,653 
4,718,463 

35.8 
34.4 

5,588,549 
5,592,519 

3,654,359 
3,744,498 

65.4 
67.0 

74.9 
71.0 

5 
6 

1.3,049,272 
9,617,271 

5, 970, 956 
4,014,669 

4.5.8 
41.7 

8,426,271 
8,633,350 

5,819,414 
5,737,299 

69.1 
66.5 

60.8 
52.7 

7 
8 

4,727,372 
3,873,716 

2,627,908 
1,984,327 

55.6 
51.2 

7,816,877 
7, 764, 205 

4,  .847, 640 
4,539,360 

62.0 

58.5 

37.7 
33.3 

9 
10 

4,338,792 
3,092,153 

2,559,203 
1,675,819 

59.0 
54.2 

9,651,480 
9,102,742 

6,220,213 
5,665,386 

64.4 
62.2 

31.0 
25.4 

11 
12 

1,994,207 
1,574,229 

1,231,225 
856,826 

61.7 
54.4 

6,899,100 
6,835,672 

4, 861, 557 
4,595,666 

70.5 
67.2 

22.4 
18. 7 

13 
14 

2,970,829 
1,9.57,456 

1,904,3^86 
1,142,636 

6-t.l 
58.4 

7,271,395 
6,827,078 

5,055,399 
4,624,813 

69.5 
67.7 

29.0 
22.3 

15 
16 

1,214,980 
947,511 

695,078 
491,829 

57.2 
51.9 

2,121,121 
1,680,006 

1,307,430 
974, 795 

61.6 
57.8 

36.4 
36.0 

17 
18 

3,471,483 
2,382,329 

1,724,085 
1,117,591 

49.7 
46.9 

2,095,388 
1,809,975 

1,163,302 
991, 179 

55.5 
54.8 

62.4 
56.8 

19 
20 

299,569 
262,248 

153,986 
137,519 

51.4 
52.4 

468, 445 
480, 123 

341,794 
357,388 

73.0 
74.4 

39.0 
35.3 

21 

22 

279, 761 
255,099 

112,873 
104,701 

40.3 
41.0 

163,322 
175,473 

112,639 
125,530 

69.0 
71.5 

63.1 
59.2 

23 
24 

109,976 
98,917 

59,302 
49,623 

53.9 
50.2 

242,452 
257,039 

169,023 
179,759 

69.7 
69.9 

31.2 
27.8 

25 
26 

3,650,248 
3,125,367 

1,116,638 
962,238 

30.6 
30.8 

202, 108 
241,049 

114,135 
141, 191 

56.5 
58.6 

94.8 
92.8 

27 
28 

589,180 
524,654 

163,733 
147,938 

27.8 

28.2 

15,217 
17,956 

9,820 
11,883 

64.5 
66.2 

97.5 
96.7 

29 
30 

936,339 
731,797 

260,703 
217,051 

27.8 
29.7 

444,292 
382, 959 

188,503 
178,598 

42.4 
46.6 

67.8 
65.6 

31 
32 

8,589,844 
7,185,494 

2,487,080 
1,955,409 

29.0 
27.2 

1,795,383 
1,928,120 

1, 181, 186 
1,274,916 

65.8 
66.1 

82.7 
78.8 

33 
34 

2,474,936 
1,907,210 

837,624 
639,962 

33.8 
33.6 

680,964 
629,957 

375,051 
369,947 

55.1 
58.7 

78.4 
75.2 

35 
36 

5,607,815 
4,630,669 

2,651,949 
2,123,092 

47.3 
45.  S 

3,112,202 
3,034,442 

2,098,122 
2,099,635 

67.4 
69.2 

64.3 
60.4 

37 

38 

236 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Table  55. — Native  Whites  of  Native  Parentage  in  Total,  Urban,  and 


DIVISION,  STATE,  AND  CENSUS  YEAB. 


CX3UBINSD  UEBAN  AND  BUBAL  POPULATION. 


Total. 


Native  white,  native 
parentage. 


Per  cent 
of  total. 


East  Nobth  Centbal. 
Ohio: 

1920 

1910 

Indiana: 

1920 

1910 

Illinois: 

1920 

1910 

Michigan: 

1920 

1910 

Wisconsin: 

1920 

1910 

West  Nobth  Centbal. 

Minnesota: 

1920 

1910 

Iowa: 

1920 

1910 

Missouri: 

1920 

1910 

North  Dakota: 

1920 

1910 

South  Dakota: 

1920 

1910 

Nebraska: 

1920 

1910 

Kansas: 

1920 

1910 

South  Atlantic. 
Delaware: 

1920 

1910 

Maryland: 

1920 , 

1910 

District  of  Columbia: 

1920 

1910 

Virginia: 

1920 

1910 

West  Virginia: 

1920 

1910 

North  Carolina: 

1920 

1910 

South  Carolina: 

1920 

1910 

Georgia: 

1920 

1910 

Florida: 

1920 

1910 


,759,394 
,  767, 121 

,  930, 390 
,  700, 876 

,485,280 
,638,591 

,668,412 
,  810, 173 

,632,067 
,333.860 


387,125 
075,708 

404,021 
224, 771 

404,055 
293,335 

646,872 
577,056 

636,547 
583,888 

,296,372 
,  192, 214 

,  769, 257 
.690,949 


223,003 
202,322 

,4-19,661 
,295,846 

437,571 
331,069 

300,187 
061,612 

468, 701 
221,119 

559, 123 
206,287 

683, 724 
515, 400 

895, 832 
609, 121 

968, 470 
752,610 


3,669,122 
3,033,259 

2,329,544 
2,130,088 

3,066,563 
2,600,555 

1,670,447 
1,224,841 

1,054,694 
763,225 


827,627 
575,081 

1, 52<<,  553 
1,303,526 

2,536,936 
2, 387, 835 

207,966 
162, 461 

308, 598 
245,652 

757,064 
642, 075 

1,308,801 
1,207,057 


139,  S76 
127,809 

893,088 
766,627 

239,488 
166,711 

1,534,494 
1,325,238 

1,2:52,S.''>7 
1,042,107 

1,765,203 
1,485,718 

799,418 
061,970 

1.642,697 
1,391,058 

532. 295 
3r3,967 


63.7 
63.6 


79.5 
78.9 


47.3 
46.1 


45.5 
43.6 


40.1 
32.7 


34.7 
27.7 


63.6 
58.6 


74.5 
72.5 


32.1 
28.2 


48,5 
42.1 


58.4 
53. 9 


74.0 
71.4 


62.7 
63.2 


61.6 
59.2 


54.7 
50.4 


66.5 
64.3 


84.2 
85.3 


69.0 
67.3 


47.5 
43.7 


56.7 
5.1.3 


.^l.  0 
49.7 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


237 


Rural  Population,  by  Divisions  and  States:  1920  and  1910 — Continued. 


URBAN  POPtn,ATION. 

RURAL  POPULATION. 

1 

Percent 
i  urban  in 

totalpop- 
.    ulation. 

Total. 

Native  white,  native 
parentage. 

Total. 

Native  white,  native 
parentage. 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

3,677,136 
2,665,143 

1,996,363 
1,360,068 

54.3 
51.0 

2, 082, 258 
2, 101, 978 

1, 672, 759 
1,673,191 

80.3 
79.6 

63.8 
55.9 

1 
2 

1,482,855 
1, 143, 835 

1,043,866 
775,755 

70.4 
67.8 

1,447,5.35 
1, 557,  Ml 

1,285,678 
1,354,333 

83.8 
87.0 

50.6 
42.4 

3 
4 

4,403,153 
3,476,929 

1,583,665 
1, 122, 044 

36.0 
32.3 

2, 082, 127 
2, 161, 662 

1,482,898 
1,478,511 

71.2 
68.4 

67.9 
61.7 

5 
6 

2,241,560 
1,327,044 

902, 177 
470, 803 

40.2 
35.5 

1,426,852 
1,483,129 

768,270 
754,038 

53.8 
50.8 

61.1 
47.2 

7 

8 

1,244,568 
1,004,320 

444,885 
285,999 

35.7 
28.5 

1,387,499 
1,329,540 

609,809 
477,226 

44.0 
35.9 

47.3 
43.0 

9 
10 

1,051,593 
850,294 

356,046 
248, 321 

33.9 
29.2 

1,335,532 
1,225,414 

471,581 
326,760 

35.3 
26.7 

44.1 

41.0 

11 
13 

S75, 495 
680,  OM 

552, 275 
395, 577 

63.1 
58.2 

1, 528, 526 
1,544,717 

976, 278 
907,949 

63.9 

58.8 

36.4 
30.6 

13 
14 

1,586,903 
1,398,817 

949, 293 
768,923 

59.8 
55.0 

1, 817, 152 
1, 894, 518 

1, 587, 643 
1,618,912 

87.4 
85.5 

46.6 
42.5 

15 
18 

88,239 
63,236 

36,448 
23,814 

41.3 
37.7 

558,633 
513,820 

171,518 
13S,647 

30.7 
27.0 

13.6 
11.0 

17 
13 

101, 872 
76,673 

58,251 
39,523 

57.2 
51.5 

534,675 
507,215 

2.50,347 
206,129 

46.8 
40.6 

16.0 
13.1 

19 
20 

405,306 
310, 852 

225,605 
160,880 

55.7 
51.8 

891,066 
881, 362 

531,459 
481, 195 

59.6 
54.6 

31.3 
26.1 

21 

22 

617,964 
493, 790 

449,990 
347,289 

72.8 
70.3 

1,151,293 
1, 197, 159 

858,814 
859,768 

74.6 
71.8 

34.9 
29.2 

23 

24 

120,767 
97,085 

63,747 
51,323 

52.8 
52.9 

102,236 
105,237 

76,129 

76,486 

74.5 

72.7 

54.2 
43.0 

25 
26 

869, 422 
658,192 

482, 491 
333,781 

55.5 
50.7 

580,239 
637,154 

410,597 
4.32,846 

70.8 
67.9 

60.0 
50.8 

27 
28 

437,571 
331, 069 

673,984 
476, 529 

239,488 
166, 711 

54.7 
50.4 

100.0 
100.0 

29 

30 

413, 778 
283,140 

61.4 
59.4 

1,63.5,203 
1,585,083 

1,120.716 
1,042,098 

68.5 
65.7 

29.2 
23.1 

31 
32 

369,007 
228,242 

288,802 
170, 675 

78.3 
74.8 

1, 094, 694 
992,877 

944,  a55 
871,432 

86.2 

87.8 

25.2 
13.7 

33 

34 

490, 370 
318, 474 

324,229 
194, 816 

66.1 
61.2 

2,068,753 
1,887,813 

1,440,974 
1.290,902 

69.7 

68.4 

19.2 
14.4 

35 
36 

293,987 
224,832 

164,425 
111,531 

55.9 
49.6 

1,389,737 
1,290,568 

634,993 
550,439 

45.7 
42.7 

17.5 
14.8 

37 

38 

727, 859 
538,650 

419, 1&3 
282, 493 

57.6 
52.4 

2,167,973 
2,070,471 

1,223,514 
1,108,565 

56.4 
53.5 

2.5.1 
20.6 

39 
40 

3.>5, 825 
219,080 

163,060 
81,349 

45.8 
37.1 

612,645 
533,539 

369,235 
292,618 

60.3 
54.8 

36.7 
29.1 

41 

42 

238 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Table  55. — Native  Whites  of  Native  Parentage  in  Total,  UrbaK,  and 


Drv-ISION,  STATE,  AND  CENSUS  YEAB. 

COMBINED  imBAN  AND  BtntAL  POPULATION. 

Total. 

Native  white,  native 
parentage. 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

1 

East  South  Central. 

Kentucky: 

1920 

2,416,630 
2.289,905 

2.337.885 
12,184,789 

2.348.174 
2,138,093 

1.790.618 
1,797,114 

1,752,204 
1,574,449 

1,798.509 
1,656.388 

2,028.283 
1.657,155 

4,663,228 
3, 896, 542 

548,889 
376,053 

431.866 
325,. 594 

194.402 
145,965 

939.629 
799,024 

360,350 
327,301 

334, 162 
204,354 

449,396 
373.351 

77,407 
81,875 

1,356.621 
1.141,990 

783,389 
672,765 

3.426,861 
2,377,549 

2,039.134 
1,863,194 

1,832.757 
1,654,606 

1,394,129 
1.177.459 

826.762 
757.233 

1.226,692 
1,077,509 

941,724 
776,587 

1.679,107 
1,310,403 

3,112.262 
2,602,950 

275.803 
162, 127 

294.252 
203,599 

122.884 
80,696 

603.041 
475. 136 

273,317 
255,609 

151,145 

82,468 

245,781 
171,663 

36.285 
35,326 

711,706 
585,386 

497,726 
416,851 

1,677.955 
1,106,533 

84.4 
81.4 

78.4 
75.7 

59.4 
55.1 

46.2 
42  1 

70.0 
68.4 

52.4 
46.9 

82.8 
79.1 

66.7 
66.8 

50.2 
43.1 

68.1 
62.5 

63.2 
55.3 

64.2 
59.5 

75.8 
78.1 

45.2 
40.4 

54.7 
46.0 

46.9 
43.1 

52.5 
51.3 

63.5 
62. 0 

49. 0 
46.5 

?, 

1910 

3 

Tennessee: 

1920 

4 

1910                

f) 

Alabama: 

1920                   

6 

1910 

7 

Missis.sippi: 

1920 

8 

1910..            

9 

West  South  Central. 

Arkansas: 

1920 

in 

1910                        

n 

Louisiana: 

1920                             .          

1? 

1910 

13 

Oklahoma: 

1920 

14 

1910                .              .   .              

15 

Texas: 

1920                          .       .          

16 

1910 

17 

Mountain. 
Montana: 

1920     

18 

1910 

19 

Idaho: 

20 

1910                   

?1 

1920 

?? 

1910 

?3 

Colorado: 

?4 

1910 

05 

1920 

26 

1910 

V 

Arizona: 

2>S 

1910 

?9 

Utah: 

1920 

30 

1910 

31 

Nevada: 

^? 

1910 

33 

Paqfio. 
Washington: 

1920 

34 

1910 , 

35 

<JreRon: 

1920 

36 

1910 

37 

California: 

38 

1910 

DETAILED  TABLES. 


239 


Rural  Population,  by  Divisions  and  States:  1920  and  1910 — Continued. 


tJBBAK  POPULATION. 

RURAL  POPULATION. 

I 

Per  cent 
1  urban  in 
total  pop- 
i   ulation. 

Total. 

Native  white,  native 
parentage. 

Total. 

Native  white,  native 
parentage. 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

Number. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

1 

633,543 
555,442 

422,  SOS 
323, 488 

60.8 
58.2 

1,783,087 
1,734,463 

1,616,236 
1,539,706 

90.6 

88.8 

26.2 
24.3 

1 
2 

611,226 
441,045 

402,3.59 
252,188 

65.8 
57.2 

1,726,6,59 
1,743,744 

1,*30,398 
1,402,418 

82.8 
80.4 

!          26.1 
1          20.2 

3 

4 

509,317 
370,431 

278,827 
184,386 

54.7 
49.8 

1,838,857 
1,767,662 

1,115,302 
993,073 

60.7 
56.2 

21.7 
17.3 

5 
6 

240, 121 
207,311 

127, 141 
96,764 

52.9 
46.7 

1,550,497 
1,589,803 

699,621 
660,469 

45.1 
41.5 

13.4 
11.5 

7 
8 

290,497 
202,681 

195,777 
123,733 

67.4 
61.0 

1,461,707 
1,371,768 

1,030,915 
953,776 

70.5 
69.5 

16.6 
12.9 

9 
10 

628,163 
496,516 

320,229 
217,517 

51.0 
43.8 

1,170,346 
1, 159, 872 

621,495 
559,070 

53.1 

48.2 

34.9 
30.0 

11 
12 

.539,480 
320, 155 

437,374 
243, 172 

81.1 
76.0 

1, 488,  .803 
1,337,000 

1,241,733 
1,067,231 

83.4 
79.8 

26.6 
19.3 

13 
U 

1,512,689 
938, 104 

951,006 
558,214 

62.9 
59.5 

3,150,539 
2,958,438 

2,161,2.56 
2,044,736 

68.6 
69.1 

32  4 
24.1 

15 
16 

172,011 
133,420 

81,508 
53,774 

47.4 
40.3 

376,878 
242,633 

194,295 
108,353 

.51.6 
44.7 

31.3 
35.5 

17 
18 

119,037 
69,898 

80,213 
43,808 

67.4 
62.7 

312,829 
255, 696 

214,039 
159,791 

68.4 
62.5 

27.6 
21.5 

19 
20 

57,348 
43,221 

33,705 
22,365 

58.8 
51.7 

137,  a54 
102, 744 

89, 179 
58,331 

65. 1 
56.8 

29.5 
29.6 

21 
22 

4.53,259 
404,840 

276,329 
230,544 

61.0 
56.9 

486,370 
394,184 

326,712 
244,592 

67.2 
62.1 

48.2 
50.7 

23 

24 

64,960 
46,571 

48,859 
34,473 

7.5.2 
74.0 

295,390 
280,730 

224,458 
221, 136 

76.0 

78.8 

18.0 
14.2 

25 
26 

117,527 
63,260 

58,330 
26,644 

49.6 
42.1 

216,635 
141,094 

92,815 
5.5,824 

42.8 
39.6 

35.2 
31.0 

27 
28 

215,584 
172,934 

108,034 
73,559 

50.1 
42.5 

233,812 
200,417 

137,747 
98,104 

58.9 
48.9 

48.0 
46.3 

29 
30 

15,2.54 
13,367 

8,100 
6,662 

53.1 
49.8 

62,153 
68,508 

28,185 
28,664 

45.3 
41.8 

19.7 
16.3 

31 
32 

748, 735 
605,530 

373,611 
294,854 

49.9 

48.7 

607,886 
536,460 

338,095 
290,  .532 

55.6 
54.2 

5.5.2 
53.0 

33 
34 

391,019 
307,060 

227,  .549 
170,078 

58.2 
55.4 

392,370 
365, 7a5 

270,177 
246,773 

68.9 
67.5 

49.9 
45.6 

35 
36 

2,331,729 
1,469,739 

1,122,925 
652,659 

48.2 
44.4 

1,09.5,132 
907, 810 

.5.55,030 
453,874 

50.7 
50.0 

68.0 
61.8 

37 
38 

240 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Table  56.— Proportion   Native   White   of  Native   Parentage  in  Population 
OF  Cities  Having,  in  1920,  100,000  Inhabitants  or  More:  1920  and  1910. 


Akron,  Ohio 

Albany,  N.  Y 

Atlanta,  Ga 

Baltimore,  Md 

Birmingham,  Ala. 

Boston,  Mass 

Bridgeport,  Conn. 

Buflalo,N.Y 

Cambridge,  Mass. . 

Camden, N.J 

Chicago, HI 

Cincinnati,  Ohio. . 
Cleveland,  Ohio... 
Columbus,  Ohio. . . 


Dallas,  Tex 

Dayton,  Ohio 

Denver,  Colo 

Des  Moines,  Iowa 

Detroit,  Mich 

Fall  River,  Mass 

Fort  Worth,  Tex 

Grand  Rapids,  Mich. 

Hartford,  Conn. 

Houston,  Tex 

Indianapolis,  Ind 

Jersey  City,  N.J 

Kansas  City,  Kans... 
Kansas  City,  Mo 


Los  Anseles,  Calif... 

Louisville,  Ky 

Lowell,  Mass 

Memphis,  Tenn 

Milwaukee,  Wis 

Minneapohs,  Minn. . 

Nashville,  Tenn 

New  Bedford,  Mass. 
New  Haven,  Conn. . 

New  Orleans,  La 

New  York,  N.Y.... 

Newark,  ^l.  J 

Norfolk, Va 

Oakland,  CaUf 


Omaha,  Nebr 

Paterson,  N.J 

Philadelphia,  Pa 

Pittsburgh,  Pa 

Portland,  Oreg 

Providence,  R.I 

Reading,  Pa 

Richmond,  Va 

Rochester,  N.Y 

St.  Louis,  Mo 

8t.  Paul,  Minn 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 
San  Antonio,  Tex — 


San  Francisco,  CaUf . 

Scranton,  I'a 

Seattle,  Wash 

Spokane,  Wash 

Springfield,  Mass 

Syracuse,  N.Y 

Toledo,  Ohio 

Trenton,  N.J 

Washington,  D.C... 
Wilmington,  Del — 

Worcester,  Mass 

Yonkers,  N.Y 

Youngslown,  Ohio. . 


TOTAL  POPULATION. 


1020 


Total 27,429,326 


208,435 
113,344 
200,616 
733,826 
17!H,S06 
748,060 
143,555 
505, 775 
109,694 
116,309 
2,701,705 
401,247 
796,841 
237,031 

158, 976 
152,559 
256, 491 
126,468 
993, 678 
120, 485 
106, 482 
,  137,634 
138, 036 
138, 276 
314,194 
298, 103 
101,177 
324, 410 

576, 673 
234, 891 
112,759 
162,351 
457, 147 
380, 582 
118,342 
121,217 
162, 537 
387,219 
5,620,048 
414, 524 
115,777 
216,261 

191,601 
135, 875 
1, 823, 779 
588,343 
258, 288 
237, 595 
107, 784 
171,667 
295,750 
772,897 
234, 698 
118,110 
161,379 


1910 


21,885,419 


506, 
137, 
315, 
1(M, 
129, 
171, 
24:5, 
119, 
437, 
110, 
179, 
100, 
132, 


676 

783 
312 
437 
614 
717 
164 
289 
571 
16H 
754 
176 
358 


69,067 
100,253 
154,839 
558,485 
132, 685 
670,  5S5 
102,054 
423,715 
104,839 
94,538 
2, 185, 283 
363, 591 
560,663 
181,511 

92,104 
116,577 
213, 381 

86,368 
465,766 
119, 295 

73, 312 
112,571 

98,915 

78,800 
233,650 
267, 779 

82,331 
248,381 

319, 198 
223,928 
106,294 
131, 105 
373,  857 
301, 408 
110,364 

96,652 
133,605 
339,075 
4,766,883 
347, 469 

67, 452 
150, 174 

1  150, 355 

125,600 

1,549,008 

533,905 

207,214 

224,326 

96,071 

127,628 

218, 149 

687,029 

214,744 

92,777 

96,614 

416,912 
129,867 
237, 194 
104,402 

88, 926 
137, 249 
168, 497 

96,815 
331,069 

87, 41 1 
145, 9K6 

79,803 

79,066 


NATIVE  WHITE  OF 
NATIVE   PARENTAGE. 


1920 


9, 852, 391 


1910 


7,123,131 


125, 079 

56,265 

124,948 

378, 380 

92,211 

181,811 

36, 816 

165, 135 

29,045 

56,249 

642,871 

206,605 

212,:il7 

159,069 

112,509 

100,996 

144,673 

84,361 

313,997 

19, 168 

75,515 

66,079 

40,327 

72,433 

219, 297 

87,083 

56,575 

209,134 

294,458 

139, 403 

24, 676 

82, 795 

130, 845 

133, 178 

74,022 

20,098 

44,401 

190,641 

1,164,834 

113,413 

57, 759 

90,279 

86,525 

31,824 

698, 782 

216, 530 

136, 216 

63,728 

81,000 

102,956 

111,976 

359, 482 

77, 378 

56,234 

76,299 

167,179 
48,715 

139, 701 
57,324 
48, 945 
80,072 

12^1,055 
44, 195 

2:59, 488 
56,868 
50,716 
30,059 
46,459 


37,793 
44,473 
91,987 
261,474 
66,312 
157,870 
27,156 
119,692 
25,615 
49,581 
445, 139 
154, 937 
132,314 
116,846 

59,746 
72,301 

106,945 
53,785 

115,106 
15,858 
50,139 
40,777 
31,011 
37,181 

150,593 
74,861 
48,021 

153,717 

169,967 

113,543 

20,703 

59,985 

78,823 

96,186 

63,687 

18, 738 

37,726 

147, 473 

921,318 

94, 737 

34, 471 

55,198 

I  61,416 

28,392 

584,008 

176,089 

104, 163 

59,966 

74,714 

69, 130 

74, 525 

269,836 

61,594 

38,152 

44,629 

115,359 
38, 745 

105,784 
54, 574 
35, 732 
58,408 
75,117 
38, 679 

166,711 
44, 937 
41,421 
21,640 
25,595 


PEE  CENT  OF 

TOTAL 
POPT7LATION. 


1920        1910 


35.9 


60.0 
49.6 
62.3 
51.6 
51.6 
24.3 
25.6 
32.6 
26.5 
48.4 
23.8 
51.5 
26.6 
67.1 

70.8 
66.2 
56.4 
66.7 
31.6 
15.9 
70.9 
40.7 
29.2 
52.4 
69.8 
29.2 
55.9 
64.5 

51.1 
59.3 
21.9 
51.0 
28.6 
35.0 
62.5 
16.6 
27.3 
49.2 
20.7 
27.4 
49.9 
41.7 

45.2 
23.4 
38.3 
36.8 
52.7 
26.8 
75.2 
60.0 
37.9 
46.5 
33.0 
47.6 
47.3 

33.0 
35.4 
44.3 
M.  9 
37.8 
46.6 
51.  0 
37.0 
54.7 
51.6 
28.2 
30.0 
35.1 


» Includes  population  of  South  Omaha,  consolidated  with  Omaha  since  1910. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


241 


Table  57. — Per  Cent  of  Incre.\se  by  Nativity  and  According  to  Whether 
Born  in  Division  or  State  of  Residence,  1910-1920,  and  Per  Cent  Distri- 
bution BY  Age  and  Marital  Condition,  1920. 

[In  this  laDle  the  divisions  and  states  are  arranged  in  descending  order,  the  position  of  each  division  or  state 
being  determined  by  the  rate  of  increase  in  tlie  population  born  and  living  in  it.] 


PER  cent  of  increase  OR  DECREASE 

(— )  IN  popul.\.tion:  1910-1920. 

age  and  marital  condition  of 

native  white  and 
total  negro  1  population:  1920. 

GEOGRAPHIC  DIVISIOX 
AND  STATE. 

Total.! 

Bom  and 
Uving  in 
specified 
division 
or  state. 

Bom  in 

other 
divisions 
or  states. 

Foreign 
born. 

Per  cent 

under 
15  years. 

Per  cent 
15  to  44 
years. 

Per  cent 
45  years 
and  over. 

Percent 
mar- 
ried, 
15  to  44 
j-ears. 

United  States  . . . 

14.9 

16.7 

ia4 

3.0 

36.0 

45.9 

lao 

53.6 

Pacific 

32.8 
26.7 
16.6 
15.2 
17.7 

7.8 
12.9 
14.7 

5.7 

14.9 

42.4 

3ai 

20.7 

ia5 

17.9 
16.9 
16.2 
12.6 
6.5 

16.2 

32.3 
24.4 

1.0 
33.3 
39.2 
-5.8 
23.5 
57.6 

0.2 

19.9 

ia3 

3.2 

32.0 

2.2 

5.2 

-14.9 
3.3 
10.2 

-16.9 

3.0 

30.0 
37.3 
37.6 
37.3 
34.0 
34.6 
36.8 
37.3 
37.4 

36.0 

4a  4 
46.6 
46.8 
44.5 
46.8 
47.6 
42.8 
45,5 
44.9 

45.9 

21.3 
15. 6 
15.5 

lai 

19.1 
17.6 
20.3 
17.1 
17.6 

lao 

.54.0 

Mountain 

55.9 

West  South  Central. . . 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central.... 
West  North  Central." . . 
New  England 

5a  2 

49.1 
53.9 

52.8 
44.9 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central 

United  St.ites  . . . 

56.2 
5a  2 

53.6 

Montana 

46.0 
32.6 
22.4 

las 

33.2 
12.1 
44.1 

63.5 
17.6 
9.0 
16.4 
20.4 
30.5 
24.4 

23.9 
15.0 

a7 

14.4 

n.4 

19.7 

2a7 

15.0 
19.9 
12.8 
4.6 
14.0 
13.8 
20.8 

32.2 

ai 

-5.5 
16.0 
11.3 
10.1 
9.8 

11.0 
11.1 

a5 
a6 

11.9 
12.0 
3.4 

7.0 
5.5 
10.2 
3.5 
2.9 
-0.4 
-1.0 

74.0 
64.1 
59.0 
56.1 
54.1 
54.0 
4a3 

39.0 
36.0 
34.7 
31.4 
29.2 
26.2 
26.0 

24.6 
24.1 
23.5 
21.7 
2L6 
21.1 
2L0 

20.1 
19.6 

ia9 

17.5 
17.5 
16.4 
15.0 

14.9 
14.7 
14.4 
14.4 
13.4 
13.3 

lae 

9.8 
9.4 

as 
as 

7.9 
7.4 
7.2 

6.5 
5.1 
4.3 
3.4 

3.4 
2.0 

51.6 
26.4 
5.8 

a9 
3a  6 

-5.9 

5a  0 

84.2 
14.4 
-3.0 
13,6 
22.0 
59.8 
35.5 

3a  4 
24.2 
-2.7 
12.2 

as 

6.7 

i%8 

16.0 
23.3 
20.8 
-5.8 
26.1 
30.8 
61.9 

4a4 

3.6 

-10.0 

45.5 
7.9 
1.6 
5.0 

26.0 
42.0 
11.9 
17.2 
46.0 
55.4 
-0.2 

12.5 
14.9 
24.9 
16.9 
11.4 
-16.2 
5.0 

0.9 

-4.3 

(^) 

3.5 

-a  5 

-15.8 
29.2 

65.2 

-ai 
-lai 

-4.9 

-10.1 

22.0 

12.4 

14.8 

-10.4 

-14.7 

Z8 

-2.2 

9.0 

32.6 

0.4 

a5 

-10.2 

-lai 

2.8 
-3.5 
13.7 

17.9 
-17.4 

-ia7 

19.4 
-17.1 

2a8 

-6.5 

7.0 

6,5 

-5.2 

-12.0 

-L7 

17.2 

-ia7 

-15.9 

-23.0 

1.3.8 

-2.5 

-5.5 

-13.9 

-10.7 

3a  4 
3a6 
3a  0 

32.8 
35.5 
48.1 
2a  6 

37.9 
33.5 
39.6 
30.9 
42.9 
36.3 
3a  3 

40.0 
3a  6 
35.9 
37.6 
3a  9 
37.1 
34.7 

35.2 
3a6 
37.3 
3.3.0 
36.7 
37.6 
31.9 

2L9 
32.8 
30.4 
40.4 
3a  6 
39.0 
39.3 

3a6 
41.0 
3a4 
37.1 
31.7 
36.2 
S1.0 

36.3 
35.6 
3L3 
31.9 
32,9 
3a6 
31.5 

47.2 
46.0 
46.2 
4a  5 
50.4 
43.6 
4a  5 

47.4 
46.9 
4a  0 
4a  0 
45.3 
46.5 
44.7 

42.1 
49.2 
4a  3 
43.5 
43.9 
47.6 
46.7 

47.4 
44.5 
47.7 
46.7 
45.1 
43.9 
46.6 

56.1 
47.5 
49.2 
43.5 
44.9 
44.7 
44.4 

45.4 
44.6 
45.8 
47.3 
47.5 
45.4 
47.5 

45.2 
44.9 
45.7 
41.7 
41.1 
45.0 
41.7 

14.0 
15.4 
15.6 

las 

13.7 

ai 

22.6 
14.4 

ia7 

12.2 
2L0 
11.7 
17.1 
16.9 

17.8 
12.1 
15.5 

las 

17  1 
15.0 

ia4 

17.2 
16.7 
14.9 
20.1 

lai 
ia4 

21.4 

21.7 
19.6 

2a2 

16.0 
16.4 
16.2 
16.2 

15.9 
14.3 
23.7 
15.3 
2a7 

las 

2L4 

ia4 

19.4 
22.7 
26.2 
25.8 
16.2 
26.7 

55.8 

Idaho 

57.8 

Oklahoma 

60.4 

Washington 

54.7 

57.7 

North  Dalcota 

47.0 

53.1 

Arizona 

55.7 

Colorado 

55.5 

South  Dakota 

51.4 

Oregon 

56.0 

Utah 

55.3 

51.8 

New  Jersey 

49.4 

Connecticut 

44.8 

Minnesota 

44.9 

Nebraska 

53.3 

Massachusetts 

42.2 

Rhode  Island 

42.0 

Texas 

56.9 

Florida 

5a  9 

IllLnois 

51.7 

West  Virginia 

57.7 

Wisconsin 

4a  4 

56.6 

Niew  York 

46.8 

Pennsylvania 

51.5 

Ohio 

55.8 

District  of  Columbia. . . 
Iowa 

47.9 
53.8 

Nevada 

5.3.8 

North  Carolina 

Arkansas 

66.3 
60.7 

New  Mexico 

5.5.1 

Alabama 

5a  1 

Georgia 

5a  6 

South  Carolina 

Indiana 

56.7 

58. 1 

56.5 

Marvland... 

53.4 

Virginia 

54.3 

Missouri 

55.8 

Tennessee 

sas 

Kentucky 

58. 1 

55.7 

Main  e 

53.0 

New  Hampshire 

4a  8 

5S.6 

Vermont 

.52.7 

>  Native  and  foreign-born  Negroes  not  tabulated  separately  by  age  groups. 

*  Includes  persons  born  in  United  States,  state  of  birth  not  reported;  persons  bora  in  outlying  possessions, 
or  at  sea  under  United  States  fiag;  and  persons  of  foreign  birth  whose  parents  were  American  citizens  tem- 
porarily absent  from  the  United  States. 

5  Less  than  one-tenth  of  1  per  cent. 


107°— 22- 


-16 


242 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Table  58. — Distribution  of  Total  Population  by  Nativity  and  of  Native 

1920    AND 

[In  tliis  table  the  divisions  and  states  are  arranged  in  descending  order,  the  position  of  each  division  or 

In  it,  as  shown 


GEOGEAPIIIC  DIVISION  AND  STATE. 

TOTAL  POPULATION.!              | 

1 

POPULATION  BORN  AKD 
LIVING  IN  SPECIFIED 
DIVISION  OR  STATE. 

1920 

1910 

1920 

1910 

105,710,620 

91,972,266 

77,906,515 

66,746,379 

Pacific         .          

5,566,871 

3,336,101 
10,242,224 
22,261,144 
21,475  543 
12, 544, 249 

7,40>),909 
13,990,272 

8,893,307 

105,710,620 

4,192,304 
2,633,517 
8,784,534 
19,315,892 
18  250, 621 
11,637,921 
6,552,681 
12,194,895 
8,409,901 

91,972,266 

2,137,746 
1,520,606 
7, 658, 879 
15,949,575 
15, 7%,  227 
8,893,937 
5,040,243 
12,718,854 
8,190,448 

71,071,013 

1,501,287 

1,101,006 

6,347,452 

Middle  Atlantic        .               

13,461,446 

13,402,685 

West  North  Central 

7,608,996 

4,338,452 

South  Atlantic                        

11,292,714 

East  South  Central 

7,692,342 

United  States 

61,185,305 

Montana     

548,889 

431,866 

2,028,283 

1,356,621 

194,402 

646,872 
3,426,861 
334, 162 
939,629 
630,547 

7S3,3£9 

449,396 

3,668,412 

3,155,900 

1,380,631 

2,387,125 
1,296,372 
3,852,356 
604,397 
4,663,228 

968,470 
6,485,280 
1,463,701 
2,632,067 
1,769,257 

10,38.5,227 
8,720,017 
5,759,394 
437,571 
2,404,021 

77,407 

2,559,123 

1,752,204 

300,350 

2,34.8,174 

2,895,832 
1,083,724 
2,930,390 
1,798,509 
1,449,661 

2,309,187 
3,404,055 
2,337,885 
2,416,630 
223,003 

708,014 

443,083 

1,790,618 

352,428 

376,053 

325,594 

1,657.155 

1,141,990 

145,965 

577, 056 
2,377,549 
204,354 
799, 024 
583, 888 

672,765 

373,351 

2,810,173 

2,537,167 

1,114,756 

2,075,708 
1,192,214 
3,366,416 
542,610 
3,896,542 

752,619 
5,638,591 
1,221,119 
2,333,860 
1,690,949 

9,113,614 
7,665.111 
4,767,121 
331,069 
2,224,771 

81,875 

2,206,287 

1,574,449 

327,301 

2,138,093 

2,609,121 
1,515,400 
2,700,876 
1,656,388 
1,295,346 

2,061,612 
3,293,335 
2,184,789 
2,289,905 
202,322 

742,371 

430,572 

1,797,114 

355,956 

172,818 
148,028 
819,229 
410, 175 
48,982 

304,679 
1,268,243 
109, 776 
317,506 
303,260 

295,723 

314,006 

2,223,333 

1,693,459 

756, 212 

1,392,176 
735, 442 

2,265,287 
324,792 

3,306,311 

560, 103 
4,090,918 
1,113,343 
1,852,574 

967,838 

6,634,469 
6,564,988 
4,079,758 
160, 109 
1,624,606 

24,761 

2,391,258 

1,196,930 

209, 234 

2,055,273 

2,595,423 
1,505,791 
2,209,448 
1,522,615 
1,107,290 

1,978,940 
2, 382, 282 
1,994,. 580 
2,134,989 
142,963 

598,345 

257,074 

1,595,136 

250,538 

99,314 

90,225 

515,212 

262,694 

31,782 

North  Dakota     

197,847 

California 

903,996 

78,949 

Colorado 

233,516 

South  Dakota 

225,125 

Oregon  .        

225,102 

Utah 

243,054 

1,761,085 

1,344,164 

Connecticut 

607,074 

Minnesota 

1,121,376 

595,551 

Massachusetts 

1,861,820 

Rhode  Island           

267,116 

Texas 

2,730,757 

Florida 

463,003 

3,406,638 

West  Virginia 

931,077 

Wisconsin 

1,558,455 

823,628 

New  York 

5,647,063 

Pennsylv^nift     , 

.5,a-5><.263 

0  hio. .". 

3,546,991 

District  of  Columbia 

139,351 

Iowa 

1,416,584 

Nevada 

21,640 

Nnrlh  Carnlinq 

2,a89,728 

Arkansas 

l,a'>5,940 

New  Mexico 

184,749 

1,857,916 

Geor^a 

2,361,349 

South  Carolina 

1,431,028 

Indiana 

2,031,345 

Louisiana 

1,4(15,936 

Maryland 

1,026,355 

Virginia 

1,843,152 

Missouri 

2,222,925 

Tennessee 

1,873,227 

Kentucky 

2,  Ml.  385 

Delaware 

137,131 

578,739 

New  Hampshire 

24.8,629 

Mississippi. 

1,563,839 

Vermont 

250,480 

•  Includes  persons  horn  in  the  T^nilod  States,  slate  of  birth  not  reported;  persons  born  in  outlvinRros- 
sessions,  or  at  .sen  under  \Tnltcd  Stitcs  flaR;  and  persons  of  foreign  birth  whoso  p.irenls  were  Ammc.in 
citizens  temporarily  ab.sont  from  tlic  I'nitod  States. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


243 


Population  According  to  Whether  Born  in  Division  or  State  op  Residence: 
1910. 

state  being  determined  by  the  rale  of  increase  between  1910  and  1920  in  the  population  born  and  living 
in  Table  57.] 


GEOGRArmC  DIVISION 
AND  STATE. 

POPULATION  BORN 

IN  OTHER  DIVISIONS 

OB  STATES. 

FOREIGN-BORN 
POPULATION. 

PER  CENT  WHICH  POPU- 
LATION   BORN     AND 
LIVING    IN   SPECIFIED 
DIVISION  OR  .STATE 
FORMED  OF  TOTAL 
P(JPULATION  LIVING 
THEREIN. 

1920 

1910 

1920 

1910 

19-20 

1910 

United  States 

13,438,948 

11,349,040 

13,920,692 

13,515,886 

73.7 

72.6 

2,237,089 

1,315,787 

2,066,629 

1,264,649 

2,367,738 

2,216,017 

449,015 

909,047 

612,977 

20,274,450 

1,691,505 

1,057,610 

2, 045, 529 

948, 939 

1,700,645 

2,3.52,472 

363,636 

576,944 

611,760 

16,910,114 

1,130,  .561 

467,620 

464, 828 

4,960,418 

3,232,141 

1,375,653 

1,885,945 

330,537 

72,989 

13,920,692 

955, 809 

453,322 

352, 192 

4,851,173 

3,073,766 

1,616,695 

1,825,110 

299. 994 

87,825 

13, 51.5, 886 

38.4 
45.6 
74.8 
71.6 
73.6 
70.9 
68.1 
90.9 
92.1 

67.2 

35.8 

Monntain 

41.8 

West  South  Central 

Middle  Atlantic 

72.3 
69.7 

East  North  Central 

West  North  Central 

73.4 
65.4 
66.2 

South  Atlantic 

92.6 

East  South  Central 

United  States 

91.5 
66.5 

Montana 

274, 877 
240, 313 
1, 155, 880 
662, 451 
116,830 

204, 092 
1, 363, 951 
137,  573 
492,079 
247, 194 

374, 292 
73, 999 
697, 365 
711,531 
241, 805 

499, 584 
402,676 
487, 242 
102, 790 
968,382 

349, 624 
1,156,685 
283,  552 
309, 809 
681, 185 

865, 523 
744, 254 
983,017 
244,222 
543, 565 

35,  734 
157, 990 
533, 148 
119,877 
269,981 

279, 246 
109, 369 
561,0.58 
223,013 
236, 134 

293, 493 
821,375 
322, 329 
247, 732 
59,045 

58, 475 
91,9.50 
183, 405 
54, 748 

177, 783 

190,063 

1,092,844 

608, 226 

84,269 

216, 996 
863, 236 
74, 699 
430, 264 
254, 762 

329, 538 
60, 655 
436,326 
525,075 
174,680 

402, 137 
414,056 
434, 104 
94,710 
907,908 

244,836 
997, 189 
229, 925 
256, 529 
722,968 

686,616 
569,204 
607, 352 
164,623 
524,  774 

39,700 
108,605 
494,075 
117,9,54 
257,031 

221, 545 
76,996 
501,420 
190,309 
161,783 

188,886 
822, 738 
286,419 
215, 517 
47, 285 

50,009 
82,  ,562 
218, 768 
52, 165 

95, 591 
40,747 
40, 432 
265, 292 
26,567 

131,863 
757,625 

80,  ,566 
119,138 

82, 534 

107,644 
59,200 
729,292 
742, 486 
378,439 

486,795 
1.50,665 
1,088,548 
175, 189 
363, 832 

53,864 

1,210,  .584 

62, 105 

460, 485 

110,967 

2, 825, 375 
1, 392,  557 

680, 452 
29, 365 

225, 994 

16,003 
7,272 
14, 137 
29. 808 
18,027 

16,564 

6, 582 

151,328 

46, 427 
103, 179 

31,705 
186,835 
15,648 
30,906 
19,901 

107,814 

91, 397 

8,408 

44,558 

94,713 

42, 578 
40.442 
256, 241 
29,020 

156,654 
586, 432 
48, 765 
129, 587 
100, 790 

113, 136 
65, 822 
597,  550 
660, 788 
329, 574 

543, 595 
176,662 
1,0.59,245 
179, 141 
241,938 

40,633 
1, 20.5, 314 

57,218 
512, 865 
135,450 

2,748,011 
1,442,374 

.598, 374 
2-i  f'f^? 

273; 765 

19, 691 
6,092 
17,046 
23. 146 
19,286 

15.477 

6,179 

1.59,603 

52,  766 
104, 944 

27,0.57 
229, 779 
18,607 
40, 162 
17, 492 

110,562 
96,667 
9,770 
49,921 

31.5 
34.3 
40.4 
30.2 
2.5.2 

47.1 
37.0 
32.9 
33.8 
47.6 

37.7 
69.9 
60.6 
53.7 
54.8 

58.3 
.56.7 
58.8 
53.7 
70.9 

57.8 
63.1 
76.1 
70.4 
54.7 

63.9 
75.3 
70.8 
36.6 
67.6 

32.0 
93.4 
68.3 
58.1 

87.5 

89.6 
I             93.0 

75. 4 
t             84.7 
1             76.4 

!             85.7 

:         70.0 

85.3 
88.3 
64.1 

77.9 

1             58. 0 

89.1 

71.1 

26.4 

Idaho 

27.7 

31.1 

Washinirton 

23.0 

21.8 

North  Dakota 

34.3 

CaUfornia 

38.0 

38.6 

Colorado 

29.2 

South  Dakota 

38.6 

33.5 

Utah 

65.1 

Michigan 

62.7 

New  .lerscv 

53.0 

Connecticut 

54.5 

54.0 

Nebraska 

50.0 

Massachusetts 

55.3 

Bhode  Island 

49.2 

Texas 

70.1 

Florida 

61.5 

60.4 

West  Virginia 

76.2 

Wisconsin 

66.8 

Kansas 

48.7 

New  York 

62.0 

73.6 

Ohio 

74.4 

District  of  Columbia 

Iowa 

42.1 
63.7 

Nevada 

26.4 

North  CaroUna 

94.7 

67.1 

56.4 

Alabama 

86.9 

Georgia 

90.6 

South  Carolina 

ff4.4 

Indiana 

75.2 

84.9 

Marvland 

79.2 

Virginia 

89.4 

Missouri 

67.5 

Tennessee 

85.7 

Kentucky 

8a7 

Delaware 

67.8 

Maine 

78.0 

New  Hampshire 

57.7 

Mississippi 

Vermont 

87.0 
70.4 

244 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  191(>-1920. 


Table  59. — Distribution  of  Population  According  to  Color,  Nativity,  and 

Class  to  Total  Increase,  for 

(The  states  for  which  figures  are  given  in  this  table  are  those  in  which  Xegroes  constituted  5  per  cent  or 

being  determined  by  the  rate  of  increase  in  the  white 


STATE  AND  CENSUS  TEAR. 


Olclahoma: 

1920 

1910 

Florida: 

1920 

1910 

Texas: 

1920 

1910 

West  Virginia: 

1920 

1910 

Alabama: 

1920 

1910 

South  Carolina: 

1920. 

1910 

North  Carolina: 

1920 

1910 

Arkansas: 

1920 

1910 

Louisiana: 

1920. 

1910. 

Georgia: 

1920 

1910 

District  of  Columbia 

1920 

1910 

Virginia: 

1920 

1910 

Missis^pi: 

im.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 

Maryland: 

1920 

1910 

Tennessee: 

1920 

1910 

Missouri: 

1920 

1910 

Kentucky: 

1920 

1910 

Delaware: 

1920 

1910 


Total 
population. 


2,028,283 
1,657,155 

%8,470 
752,619 

4,663,228 
3, 896, 642 

1,463,701 
1, 221, 119 

2,348,174 
2,138,093 

1,683,724 
1,515,400 

2, 559, 123 
2, 206, 287 


1,752,204 
1,574,449 

1,798,509 
1,656,388 

2,895,832 
2,609,121 

437, 571 
331,069 

2,309,187 
2,061,612 

1,790,618 
1,797,114 

1,449,661 
1,295,346 

2,337,885 
2,184,789 

3,404,055 
3, 293, 335 

2,416,630 
2,289,905 

223,003 
202,322 


Total 

white 

population.2 


1,321,194 
1, 444, 531 

638,153 
443,634 

3,918,165 
3, 204, 848 

1,377,235 
1, 156, 817 

1,447,032 
1, 228, 832 

818, 538 
679, 161 

1,783,779 
1,500,511 

1,279,757 
1,131,026 

1,096,611 
941,086 

1,689,114 
1,431,802 

326,860 
236, 128 

1,617,909 
1,389,809 

853,962 
786,111 

1, 204, 737 
1,062,639 

1,885,993 
1,711,432 

3, 225, 044 
3,134,932 

2,180,560 
2,027,951 

192,015 
171, 102 


White 

population 

born  and 

living  in 

specilied 

state. 


702, 130 
403,005 

342,353 
284,455 

2,650,041 
2,127,423 

1,079,987 
903,885 

1, 213, 217 
1,017,267 

718,524 
609,677 

1,665,379 
1,418,606 

885,648 
759,647 

887,092 
762,369 

1,471,937 
1,267,017 

113,486 
98,843 

1,360,807 
1, 219, 171 

732,695 
662, 897 


910,534 
824, 742 

1,628,768 
1,479,902 

2,280,498 
2,112,820 

1,933,612 
1,797,734 

122,524 
114,463 


Whit« 

population 

born  in 

other 

states. 


1,068,052 
994,338 


250,440 
143,503 

886,806 
825,846 

231,288 
193,320 

213,626 
190,952 

92,445 
62,878 

109,612 
75,073 

375,105 
349,789 

160,368 
122,163 

198, 469 
145,649 

181,813 
111,452 

223,106 
142,251 

111,921 
112,279 

189,777 
131,896 

238,751 
208,647 

746, 767 
777,207 

213,855 
187,998 

49,445 
38,884 


Foreign - 
born 
white 

popula- 
tion. 


39,968 
40,084 

43.008 
33,842 

360,519 
239,984 

61,906 
57, 072 

17,662 
18,956 

6,401 
6,054 

7,099 
5,942 

13,975 
16,909 

44,871 
51,782 

16,186 
15,072 

26,548 
24,351 

30,785 
26,628 

8,019 
9,389 

102, 177 
104,174 

15,478 
18,459 

186,026 
228, 896 

30,780 

40,  aw 

19,810 
17,420 


*  Includes  Indians,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc. 

»  Includes  native  white  persons  for  whom  state  of  birth  was  not  roporlod,  and  white  persons  born  In 
outl>'iug  possessions. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


245 


Whether  Born   in   State   op  Residence,  with   Ratio   of  Increase  in   Each 
Selected  St.\tes:  1920  and  1910. 

more  of  the  total  population  in  1920.    The  states  are  arranged  in  dc-;ccnding  order,  the  position  of  each 
id  1'   ■      ■    ■ 


population  born  and  living  in  it,  as  shown  in  Table  CO.] 


Total 

Negro 
popula- 
tion.a 

Negro 
popula- 
tion born 
and  living 
in  speci- 
fied state. 

Negro 
popula- 
tion born 
in  other 

states. 

RATIO    (PER    CEirr)    OF    INCREA.SE    IM    SPECTFIED    POPULATION 
CLASS  TO  INCREASE  IN  TOTAL  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 

Total 
white 
popula- 
tion. 

White 
popula- 
tion 
born 
and 

living 
in 

speci- 
fied 

state. 

White 
popula- 
tion 
born 
in 
other 
states. 

For- 
eign- 
born 
white 
popula- 
tion. 

Total 
Negro 
popula- 
tion. 

Negro 
popula- 
tion 
born 
and 

living 
in 

speci- 
fied 

state. 

Negro 
popula- 
tion 
born 

in 
other 
states. 

149,408 
137,612 

64,079 
45,976 

83,941 
90,420 

}  101.5 

80.6 

19.9 

0) 

3.2 

4.9 

(.*) 

1 

329,487 
308,669 

217,229 
198,496 

99,079 
101,278 

}    90.1 

36.1 

49.5 

4.2 

9.6 

8.7 

0) 

2 

741,694 
690,049 

655,065 
602,761 

81,246 

81,8.S3 

}    93.0 

68.2 

8.0 

15.7 

6.7 

0.8 

(*) 

3 

86,345 
64, 173 

33,347 
27,160 

52,220 
36,573 

1    90.9 

72.6 

15.7 

2.0 

9.1 

2.6 

6.5 

4 

900,652 
908, 282 

841,668 
839,821 

56,309 
65,981 

1  103.9 

93.3 

10.8 

(0 

0) 

0.9 

(*) 

5 

864,719 
835,843 

847,026 
821,058 

16, 827 
14,008 

1    82.8 

04.7 

17.6 

0.2 

17.2 

15.4 

1.6 

6 

763,407 
697, 843 

714,449 
66.3,394 

47,963 
33,392 

}    80.3 

69.9 

9.8 

0.3 

18.6 

14.5 

4.1 

7 

472, 220 
442, 891 

311,247 
296,040 

157,935 
144,065 

1    83.7 

70.9 

14.2 

(«) 

16.5 

8.6 

7.S 

8 

700,257 
713,874 

634,353 
642, 733 

62,567 
68,022 

1  109.4 

87.8 

20.9 

0) 

0) 

(0 

(*) 

9 

1,206,365 
1,176,987 

1,123,394 
1,097,257 

80,682 
75,821 

1    89.7 

71.5 

18.4 

0.4 

10.2 

9.1 

1.7 

10 

109,966 
94,446 

46,569 
40,459 

62,305 
53,058 

1    85.2 

13.7 

66.1 

3.9 

14.6 

5.7 

N.7 

11 

690,017 
671,096 

617,324 
623,472 

70,301 
46,570 

\    92.1 

57.2 

32.7 

1.7 

7.6 

(.*) 

9.0 

12 

935,184 
1,009,487 

861,340 
899,690 

71,401 
106,436 

}     (.') 

(") 

(=•) 

(') 

(') 

(') 

(--) 

13 

244,479 
232, 250 

196,729 
201,594 

46,255 
29,769 

\    92.1 

.35. 6 

37.5 

(0 

7.9 

(*) 

10.7 

14 

451,758 
473,088 

365,769 
393, 173 

83,546 
77,705 

1  114.0 

97.2 

19.7 

(*) 

0) 

(*) 

3.8 

15 

178,241 
157,452 

101,702 
109,949 

74,396 
45,299 

}    81.4 

151.4 

(*) 

(') 

IS.  8 

(*) 

26.3 

16 

235,938 
261,656 

201,335 
233,454 

33,839 
27,462 

1  120. 4 

107.2 

•-0.  1 

(«) 

(«) 

(«) 

5.0 

17 

30,335 
31,181 

20,438 
22,668 

9,589 
8,399 

1  104.0 

.39.0 

51.1 

D.O 

<*) 

0) 

5.8 

18 

3  Includes  native  Negroes  for  whom  state  of  birtb  was  not  reported,  Negroes  born  in  outlying 
possessions,  and  foreign-bom  Negroes. 
<  Decrease  in  class. 
»  Decrease  in  total  population. 


246 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:  1910-1920. 


Table  60. — Per  Cent  of  Increase  According  to  Color,  Nativity,  and 
Whether  Born  in  State  of  Residence,  1910-1920,  and  Per  Cent  Distribu- 
tion OF  Whites  and  Negroes  by  Age  and  M.^rital  Condition,  1920,  for 
Selected  States. 

[The  states  for  which  percentages  are  given  in  this  table  are  those  in  which  Negroes  constituted  5  per 
cent  or  more  of  the  total  population  in  1923.  The  states  are  arranged  in  descending  order,  the 
position  of  each  being  determined  by  the  rate  of  increase  in  the  white  population  born  and  living 
Init.) 


PER  CENT 

or  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  (— 

:  1910-1920 

STATE. 

In  total 
white 

popula- 
tion. 

In  white 
popula- 
tion born 
and  liv- 
ing in 
specified 
state. 

In  white 
popula- 
tion born 
in  other 
states. 

In 

foreign- 
born 
white 

popula- 
tion. 

In  total 
Negro 
popula- 
tion. 

In  Negro 
popula- 
tion born 
and  living 
in  speci- 
fied state. 

In  Negro 
popula- 
tion born 
in  other 
states. 

26.1 
43.8 
22.3 
19.1 
17.8 

20.5 
18.9 
13.2 
16.5 
18.0 

38.4 
16.4 
8.6 
13.4 

10.2 
2.9 
7.5 

12.6 

74.2 
29.5 
24.6 
19.5 
19.3 

17.9 
17.4 
16.6 
16.4 
16.2 

14.8 
11.6 
10.5 

10.4 

10.1 
7.9 
7.6 
7.0 

7.4 
74.5 

7.4 
19.6 
11.9 

47.0 
46.0 
7.2 
31.3 
36.3 

63.1 
56.8 
-0.3 
43.9 

14.4 
-3.9 
13.8 
27.2 

-0.3 

27.1 

50.2 

8.5 

-6.8 

5.7 

19.5 

-17.4 

-13.3 

7.4 

17.2 

15.6 

-14.6 

-1.9 

-16.1 

-18.7 

-23. 2 

13.7 

8.6 

6.7 

7.5 

34.6 

-0.8 

3.5 
9.4 
6.6 
-1.9 
2.5 

16.4 

2.8 

-7.4 

5.3 

-4.5 
13.2 
-9.8 
-2.7 

39.4 
9.4 
8.7 

22.8 
0.2 

3.2 
7.7 
5.1 
-1.3 
2.4 

15.1 
-1.0 
-4.3 
-2.4 

-7.0 
-7.5 
-13.8 
-9.8 

-7.2 

Florida 

Texas. 

-2.2 
-0.8 
42.8 

Alabama 

-14.7 
19.6 

4;$.  6 

Arkansas 

9.6 
-8.0 

Georgia 

6.4 
17.4 

51.0 

-32.9 

55.4 

7.5 

64.2 

23.2 

14.2 

AGEl 

and  marital  condition  of  native 
negroes:  1920. 

WHITES  AND  OF  TOTAL 

Native 

whites. 

Totai  Negroes.' 

STATE. 

Per 

cent 
under 

15 
years. 

Per 

cent 

15  to  44 

years. 

Per 

cent 

45 

years 

and 
over. 

Per 
cent 
married 
in  pop- 
ulation 
15  to  44 
years. 

Per 
cent 

under 
15 

years. 

Per 

cent 

15  to  44 

years. 

Per 
cent 
45 
years 
and 
over. 

Per 
cent 
married 
in  pop- 
ulation 
15  to  44 
years. 

Oklahoma 

38.2 
35.7 
37.6 
39.2 
40.0 

39.1 
39.9 
.39.7 
37.9 
38.3 

21.7 
36. 0 
38.9 
32.0 

37.1 
31.5 
36.4 
31.8 

46.1 
41.5 
47.2 
43.7 
44.2 

45.2 
43.4 
43.8 
46.7 
45.3 

55. 4 
45.1 
41.3 
46.9 

44.5 
47.0 
44.4 
4.5.1 

15.6 
19.6 
1.5.0 
16.9 
15.8 

15.6 
16.6 
16.4 
15.2 
16.4 

22.5 

18.  8 
16.6 
21.1 

IS.  4 
21.4 
19.1 
22.9 

60.7 
58.5 
56.8 
57.6 
59.3 

56.5 
56.9 
60.8 
55.0 
58.5 

4.5.3 
54.3 
57.3 
52.9 

58.6 
5.5.7 
58.4 
56.1 

35.8 
32.8 
34.9 
29.3 
38.3 

42.7 
41.8 
35.  6 
35.9 
39.0 

1        22.4 

1        36.7 

38. 3 

i        30. 5 

33.1 
22.2 
28.1 
28.8 

48.0 
50.6 
49.6 
56.0 
44.7 

44.1 
43.6 
47.7 
48.3 
45.6 

57.9 
46.0 
45.7 
50.2 

48.1 
56.1 
49.3 
40.2 

15.9 
16.1 
15.3 
14.2 

16.8 

13.1 
14.4 
16.  4 
15.6 
15.3 

19.3 
17.1 
15.8 
19.0 

1.8.5 
21.3 
22.4 
21.2 

57.8 

Florida 

59.8 

Texas 

57.3 

58.8 

56.2 

South  Carolina 

56.9 

54.8 

60.4 

58.  8 

58.7 

District  of  Columbia 

54.9 

Virginia 

54.1 

Mississippi 

59.8 

Maryland 

55.6 

Tennessee 

57.1 

Missouri ^ 

57.0 

Kentucky 

55.4 

Delaware 

53.4 

'  Percentages  for  age  based  on  total  population  of  spocined  diss,  including  a  small  number  of  persons  of 
unknown  age. 
•  Native  and  foreign-born  Negroes  not  tabulated  separately  by  ago  groups. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


247 


Table  61. — Proportions  of  Children  Under  15  Years  of  Age  and  of  Persons 
45  Years  of  Age  and  Over  in  Total  Population,  by  Divisions  and  States: 
1920,  1910,  and  1900. 


PER  CENT  UNDER  15 

FEARS. 

PER  CENT  45  YEARS  AND  OVER. 

DUnsiON  AND  STATE. 

19-20 

1910 

1900 

1920 

1910 

1900 

31.8    j 

32.1 

34.4 

20.8 

18.9 

17.7 

Geographic  division.s: 

28.5 
29.8 
29.4 
31.1 
36.5 
37.1 
36.5 
.33.2 
25.2 

27.2 
29.0 
29.5 
31.9 
37.5 
38.1 
38.8 
31.1 
2-1.3 

27.4 
30.6 
32.5 
35.4 
39.0 
39.7 
41.3 
33.6 
27.9 

24.6 
21.7 
22.5 
21.7 
17.6 
17.9 
16.3 
18.8 
25.1 

23.0 
19.8 
21.2 
19.3 
16.2 
15.9 
14.4 
17.0 
21.5 

22.5 

Middle  Atlantic 

19.3 

East  North  Central        

19.1 

V.'e-st  North  Central 

17.1 

South  Atlantic     

15.7 

East  South  Central          

15.0 

West  South  Central 

1.3.5 
15.7 

20.5 

New  England: 

28.2 
27.0 
28.5 
28.0 

28.8 
30.0 

27.8 
30.2 
32.1 

28.6 
29.0 
29.2 
29.9 
31.2 

31.2 
29.9 
29.4 
38.9 
34.7 
32.0 
31.2 

28.8 
29.7 
20.6 
35.8 
37.2 
40.4 
40.9 
38.3 
33.4 

35.2 
36.1 
39.1 

38.4 

38.3 
36.2 
37.6 

35.4 

32.6 
35.3 
31.3 
29.9 
37.1 
3:5.3 
37.8 
24.8 

27.4 
27.2 

23.7 

27.4 
20.2 
27.6 
27.0 
27.6 
27.8 

27.3 
29.1 
30.9 

28.2 
29.5 
29.5 
29.6 
32.2 

31.8 
30.9 
31.0 
0  \7 
34.3 
32.8 
31.8 

28.9 
30.9 
23.2 
37.0 
36.7 
40.5 
41.6 
39.8 
35.7 

35.9 
37.0 
39.8 
40.2 

39.4 
38.4 
39.0 
38.6 

27.2 
33.3 
26.9 
28.5 
36.8 
31.7 
37.1 
20.8 

26.4 
25.7 
22.8 

27.3 
2.5.9 
27.6 
27.4 
28.1 
28.0 

29.1 
30.7 
32.4 

30.9 
32.3 
32.9 
31.9 
35.8 

36.4 
34.0 
34.8 
39.3 
38.5 
36.4 
34.9 

31.4 
33.1 
25.0 
38.3 
38.3 
41.3 
42.7 
41.4 
38.6 

37.6 

38.8 
41.1 
41.9 

41.5 
40.5 
41.3 
41.6 

29.2 
.36.  4 
30.6 
30.3 
38.8 
32.9 
40.9 
25.5 

30.5 
30.5 
26.3 

28.1 
28.5 
28.5 
24.2 
23.3 
22.2 

22.5 
21.1 
20.9 

23.2 
24.8 
21.6 
21.7 
22.1 

20.7 
23.4 
23.1 
1.5.9 
18.0 
20.5 
22.4 

2.3.7 
22.3 
22.8 
18.5 
17.0 
16.1 
14.4 
16.0 
19.4 

19.9 
18.6 
16.4 
16.3 

16.7 
16.1 
16.2 
16.2 

18.4 
18.3 
16.2 
21.9 
17.1 
16.2 
16.6 
2.3.8 

22.7 
24.4 
26.1- 

27.1 
27.1 
27.0 
21.9 
20.8 
21.6 

20.6 
19.4 
19.1 

22.3 
22.5 
19.3 
22.5 
20.5 

18.4 
21.4 
19.7 
13.5 
16.5 
18.7 
20.3 

22.4 
20.5 
21.5 
17.3 
15.5 
15.7 
13.5 
14.6 
14.9 

17.7 
16.8 
15.0 
13.7 

14.7 
14.2 
14.2 
14.4 

16.2 
16.2 
14.0 
19.2 
16.1 
1.5.6 
15.1 
21.2 

18.5 
20.9 
23.1 

26.5 

26.4 

Vermont     

26.6 

21.0 

20.6 

21.8 

Middle  Atlantic: 

20.2 

19.1 

18.4 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

20.4 

19.7 

17.3 

20.7 

18.2 

We.st  North  Central: 

15.8 

18.5 

16.9 

12.6 

South  Dakota 

15.9 

16.2 

18.6 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

20.2 

18.6 

District  of  Columbia 

20.9 
16.7 

West  Virginia 

15.0 

15.6 

South  Carolina 

13.6 

14.1 

Florida 

14.0 

East  South  Central: 

16.0 

15.6 

14.7 

13.4 

West  South  Central: 

13.9 

13.9 

Oklahoma 

12.9 

Texas 

13.3 

Mountain: 

14.2 

Idaho     

1.5. 2 

12.8 

In.  7 

15.8 

16.0 

Utah 

14.4 

24.7 

PAcmc: 

Washington 

16.6 

19.3 

22.2 

248 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 


Table  62. — Number  of  Persons  Engaged  and  Value  Produced  or  Added, 
FOR  Agriculture  in  Comparison  with  Manufactures  and  Production  of 
Minerals,  by  Divisions  and  States:  1919. 

(Sec  Appendix  E.) 


PERSONS  engaged  IN— 

Value  of 
agricultural 
products  .1 

Value  added  by 

DIVISION  AND  STATE. 

Agriculture. 

Manufactures 
and  produc- 
tion of 
minerals. 

plus  value  of 
products  of 

mineral 
industries. 

United  States 

10,636,826 

11,893,5.58 

$20,933,487,000    1 

$28,206,165,000 

Geographic  divisions: 

221, 162 

633, 064 

1,586,291 

1, 064, 919 

2,114,586 

1,782,628 

1,781,389 

414,009 

438, 178 

1,543,095 

3,816,142 

3,091,676 

70S,  772 

1, 073, 132 

480,570 

413,863 

222,382 

543, 926 

463, 106, 000 
1,497,641,000 
4,323,955,000 
5,540,245,000 
2,509,601,000 
1,722,324,000 
2, 702, 169, 000 

914, 787, 000 
1,259,599,000 

3,249,884,000 

Middle  Atlantic    

9,287,921,000 

East  North  Central 

7,596,274,000 

West  North  Central 

1,690,804,000 

South  Atlantic        

2,211,625,000 

846,211,000 

West  South  Central      

1,220,595,000 

Mountain          

634,264,000 

Pacific 

1,468,587,000 

New  England: 

Maine...        .          

61,034 
25, 312 
41,724 
49,839 
7,337 
35,916 

302,702 

56,796 

274, 166 

356,065 
291, 493 
375,354 
271,379 
292,000 

291,967 
325, 601 
391, 574 
119, 779 
116, 880 
186,745 
232, 373 

17,326 
90,164 
779 
291,529 
118,869 
468,640 
418,483 
601, 595 
107, 201 

391, 392 
395, 232 
497,627 
498, 377 

402,070 
278, 766 
313,081 
787,472 

81,696 
67,235 
2.5, 556 
98,673 
54, 034 
35, 397 
42,974 
8,444 

100, 4.57 

78,615 

2.59,  106 

100,377 
91,089 
42,084 
814,437 
156, 433 
338,675 

1,533,227 

608,456 

1,674,459 

939,670 
358,883 
889,064 
582, 271 
321,788 

166,240 

117,473 

262,097 

7,087 

10,914 

49,262 

95,699 

33, 102 
171,985 

14,116 
154, 715 
204, 015 
177, 531 

87, 368 
143,620 

86,680 

131,  M7 
128,750 
155,  .521 
s  64, 452 

62,275 

'118,618 

79, 169 

153,801 

38,037 
19,027 
18,  .368 
63,  2.31 
14,253 
27, 178 
33,  865 
8,423 

155, 876 
68,  852 
319,  198 

141,927,000 
45, 892, 000 
92,873,000 
98,452,000 
12, 008, 000 
71,954,000 

713,513,000 
127,647,000 
656,481,000 

922,025,000 
767,680,000 
1,281,889,000 
590,691,000 
761,670,000 

723,257,000 
1,440,942,000 
935, 449, 000 
367, 663,  000 
410,446,000 
783,042,000 
879,446,000 

31,238,000 
152, 181, 000 
477,000 
400, 236, 000 
157, 470,  000 
580, 689, 000 
475,476,000 
616,01.5,000 

95,879,000 

495, 067, 000 
470, 240, 000 
363, 876, 000 
393, 135, 000 

410,297,000 

231,890,000 

7a3, 772, 000 

1, 356, 204, 000 

140,784,000 
179,  220,  OCX) 
67,975,000 
278, 586,  000 
74, 768, 000 
59, 676, 000 
87, 403, 000 
26,375,000 

295, 178, 000 
20:i,  2!2, 000 
761,189,000 

204,076,000 

169, 245, 000 

Vermont.  .^ 

81,490,000 

Massachusetts 

1,754,644,000 

Rhode  Island 

332, 286, 000 

Connecticut 

708,143,000 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

3. 947, 889, 000 

New  Jersey         . .         

1,414,430,000 

Pennsylvania  

3,925,602,000 

EA.ST  North  Central: 

Ohio                           

2, 322, 879, 000 

Indiana  .  .         

776,642,000 

Illinois       ,                   

2,115,648,000 

Michigan                            

1,650,815,000 

Wisconsin...           

730, 290, 000 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota  ..              

465, 439, 000 

Iowa 

243, 706, 000 

Missouri 

572, 870, 000 

North  Dakota 

14,812,000 

South  Dakota 

24, 499, 000 

Nebraska 

115,561,000 

Kansas 

253,917,000 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

79,884,000 

Maryland 

334, 297, 000 

37,903,000 

Virginia 

301,334,000 

West  Virginia            

496,637,000 

North  Carolina 

419,639,000 

South  Carolina 

154,818,000 

Georgia 

257, 490, 000 

Florida 

129,623,000 

East  Sotrrn  Central: 

Kentucky 

258,431,000 

Tennessee 

234,778,000 

Alabama 

251,933,000 

Mississippi ...         

'101,069,000 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

105,90.5,000 

Louisiana 

-284,802,000 

Oklahoma 

370,68,5,000 

Texas 

459,203,000 

Mountain: 

94,437,000 

Idaho 

48,402,000 

Wyoming 

81,124,000 

ColoradoT 

151,969,000 

New  Mexico 

29, 003,  000 

Arizona 

116,602,000 

Utah 

88,290,000 

Nevada 

24,437,000 

PAcmc: 

Washington 

379, 774, 000 

162. 462, 000 

California 

920, 351,  (KK) 

1  Total  value  of  crops  plus  total  value  of  live-stfiok  products  and  domestic  animals  sold  or  slaught  orod  on 
farms;  includes  some  duplication  representing  vuluc  of  crops  consumed  by  live  slock  and  vahK"  of  iiniinuls 
sold  and  subsc<iMcntly  rnold  or  slaughtered  by  piircha.ser  during  census  year. 

'  Number  of  persons  engaged  in  production  of  minerals  and  value  of  prciducts  of  mineral  Industries  for 
Louisiana  include  corresponding  items  for  Mississippi,  nut  shown  separately  in  census  reports. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


249 


Table  63. — Urbanization  of  Population  in  Comparison  With  Industrial 
Development,  by  Divisions,  1920,  1910,  and  1850,  and  by  States,  1920  and 
1910. 

[See  Appendix  E.] 


DIVISION,  STATE,  AND 
CENSUS  TEAK. 


United  States: 

1920 

1910 

1850 


Geographic  Divisions. 

New  England: 

1920 

1910 

1850 

Middle  Atlantic: 

1920 

1910 

18,50 

East  North  Central: 

1920 

1910 

18.50 

West  North  Central: 

1920 

1910 

1850 

South  Atlantic: 

1920 

1910 

1850 

East  South  Central: 

1920 

1310 

1850 

West  South  Central: 

1920 

1910 

1850 

Mountain: 

1920 

1916 

1850 

Pacific: 

1920 

1910 

1850 


New  England. 


Maine: 

1920 

1910 

New  Hampshire: 

1920 

1910 

Vermont: 

1920 

1910 

Massachusetts: 

1920 

1910 

Rhode  Island: 

1920 

1910 

Connecticut: 

1920 

1910 


PER  CENT  OF  TOTAL  COM- 
PRISING VALUE  OF  AG- 
RICULTURAL PRODUCTS, 
VALUE  ADDED  BY  MAN- 
UFACTURE, AND  VALUE 
OF  PRODUCTS  OF  MIN- 
ERAL INDUSTRIES.! 


Agricul- 
tural 
prod- 
ucts. 


42.6 
45.8 
71.5 


12.5 
15.5 
37.1 

13.9 
16.5 
55.5 

36.3 
42.6 
85.3 

76.6 
77.5 
83.5 

53.2 
56.0 
85.1 

67.1 
67.8 
93.7 

6S.9 
74.8 
93.2 

59.1 
48.1 
92.8 

46.2 
48.2 


Value 
added 

by 
manu- 
facture. 


41.0 
40.6 


21.3 
27.0 


5.3.3 

52.4 


5.3 
7.5 


3.5 
5.5 


9.2 

12.8 


51.0 

47.4 
26.5 


87.0 
83.3 
61.4 

78.2 
74.3 
41.8 

59.7 
51.7 
14.0 

19.5 
18.3 
15.6 

39.4 
37.4 
14.0 

25.9 
27.6 
6.1 

18.6 
21.0 


20.2 
20.6 
7.2 

47.3 
42.7 
7.6 


58. 5 
57.9 


77.9 
71.6 


41.8 
38.2 


94.5 
92.0 


96.2 
93.8 


90.6 

8G.7 


Mineral 
prod- 
ucts. 


6.4 
6.9 
1.9 


0.5 
1.2 
1.5 

7.9 
9.2 
2.7 

4.0 
5.6 
0.7 

3.9 
4.2 
0.9 

7.5 
6.7 
0.8 

7.1 
4.6 
0.2 

12.5 
4.1 
0) 

20.8 
31.2 


6.6 
9.2 
83.6 


0.5 
1.5 


0.7 
1.4 


4.9 
9.4 


0.2 
0.5 


0.3 

0.7 


0.2 
0.5 


PER  CENT  OF  TOTAL  PER- 
SONS ENGAGED  LN  AG- 
RICULTURE, MANUFAC- 
TURES, ANT>  PRODUCTION 
OF  MINERALS.' 


Agricul- 
ture. 


47.2 

58.4 
(») 


12.5 
18.4 
(») 

14.2 
47.2 

(') 

33.9 

47.4 
(') 

70.1 
76.4 
(') 

66.3 
74.8 
(«) 

78.8 
85.5 
« 

81.1 
88.4 
(') 

65.1 
64.9 
(') 

44.6 
57.0 

(') 


37.8 
44.5 


21.7 
28.6 


49.8 
50.6 


5.8 
9.1 


4.5 
8.0 


9.6 
16.1 


Manu- 
fac- 
tures. 


48.0 
36.3 


87. 0 
80.3 
(') 

77.6 
67.9 
(') 

61.7 
46.6 
(') 

27.0 
19.6 
(») 

29.2 
21.6 
(') 

16.9 
11.6 
(») 

15.5 
10.3 
(') 

21.0 
16.6 

« 

52.5 
37.7 

(5) 


61.5 
53.9 


77.6 
70.1 


46.3 
40.1 


94.0 
90.3 


95.3 
91.4 


90.2 
83.3 


Produc- 
tion of 
minerals. 


4.8 
5.4 
(») 


0.5 
1.3 

(') 

8.2 
11.3 
(') 

4.4 
6.0 

(') 

2.9 
4.0 
(») 

4.4 
3.6 
(') 

4.3 
2.9 

(•) 

3.4 
1.3 

(') 

14.0 
IS.  4 
(') 

2.9 
5.3 

(') 


0.7 
1.6 


0.7 
1.3 


3.9 
9.3 


0.2 
0.5 


0.3 
0.5 


0.2 
0.7 


Percent 
urban 

in 
total 
popu- 
lation. 


51.4 
45.8 
17.9 


79.2 
76.3 
42.6 

74.9 
71.0 
26.1 

60.8 
52.7 
9.3 

37.7 
33.3 
10.9 

31.0 
25.4 
11.6 

22.4 
18.7 
3.7 

29.0 
22.3 
15.1 

36.4 
36.0 
6.6' 

62.4 
56.8 
14.3 


94.  f 
92.! 


67.) 
65.  ( 


Percent 
of  pop- 
ulation 

in 
cities  of 
100,000 
and 
over 
and 
their 
adja- 
cent 
terri- 
tory.' 


34.9 
29.4 
(•) 


58. 9 
48.9 
(») 

63.0 

5.8.7 
(») 

39.6 
31.6 
(•) 

19.6 
16.6 

(») 

16.3 
12.1 
(») 

12.3 
10.6 

las 

4.2 

(') 

13.2 
9.1 
(') 

47.1 
43.4 


7.7 
7.2 


78.4 
69.1 


87.3 
86.5 


58.0 
34.2 


1  Relates  to  calendar  year  preceding  census  year. 

2  The  term  "adjacent  territory"  refers  to  the  area  lying  within  approximately  10  miles  beyond  the 
boimdaries  of  the  central  city. 

s  Data  incomplete. 


250 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


Table  63. — Urbantzation    of    Population   in   Comparison    With   Industrial 
Development,  by  Divisions,  1920,  1910,  and  1850,  and  by  States,  1920  and 

1910— Continued. 

[See  Appendix  E.] 


DIVISION,  STATE,  .\.ND 
CENSUS  YEAR. 

PER  cent  of  total  COM- 
PRISING   WKLUE    or   AG- 
RICULTURAL    PRODUCTS, 
VALUE  ADDED  BY  MAN- 
LTACTtniE,    AND   VALUE 
OF    PRODUCTS    OF    MIN- 
ERAL INDUSTRIES.! 

PER  CENT  OF  TOTAL  PER- 
SONS   ENGAGED    IN    AG- 
RICULTURE,     MANUFAC- 
TURES, AND  PRODUCTION 
OF  MINERALS.' 

Percent 
urban 

in 
total 
popu- 
lation. 

Percent 
of  pop- 
ulation 

in 

citiesof 

100.000 

and 

over 

Agricul- 
tural 
prod- 
ucts. 

Value 
added 

by 
manu- 
facture. 

Mineral 
prod- 
ucts. 

Agricul- 
ture. 

Manu- 
fac- 
tures. 

Produc- 
tion of 
minerals. 

and 
their 
adja- 
cent 
terri- 
tory.' 

Middle  Atlantic. 

New  York: 

1920     

15.3 

1S.0 

8.3 
11.9 

14.3 
16.2 

28.4 
35.9 

49.7 
55.0 

37.7 
40.9 

26.4 
38.8 

51.1 
50.0 

00.8 
59.4 

85.5 
85.3 

02.0 
62.6 

90. 1 
97.1 

94.4 
93.2 

87.1 
87.1 

77.0 
82.0 

2S.  1 
36.5 

31.3 
33.2 

1.2 
2.0 

84.2 
81.3 

91.1 
88.4 

67.8 
62.8 

67.4 
58.1 

46.9 
40.7 

57.0 
53.6 

69.0 
50.4 

48.2 
48.0 

28.2 
27.8 

13.4 
12.7 

35.8 
32.7 

3.4 
2.6 

4.4 
3.4 

12.8 
12.8 

14.4 
14.0 

71.7 
62.0 

m.7 

03.7 

98.7 
97.4 

0.5 
0.7 

0.6 
1.7 

17.9 
21.0 

4.1 
0.0 

3.4 
3.7 

5.3 
5.4 

4.0 
10.8 

0.7 
1.5 

11.0 
12.8 

1.1 
2.0 

2.2 

4.7 

0.5 
0.3 

1.2 
3.4 

(') 
0.1 

8.0 
4.0 

0.2 
1.5 

2.0 
3.2 

16.5 
23.2 

8.5 
IS.  4 

14.1 
19.9 

27.5 
41.5 

44.8 
57.8 

29.7 
40.7 

31.8 
50.0 

47.6 
57.4 

03.7 
69.2 

73.5 
78.2 

59.9 
67.5 

94.4 
96.2 

91.5 
93.1 

79.1 
80.2 

70.8 
79.0 

34.4 
47.9 

34.4 
44.7 

5.2 

8.7 

83.1 
75.9 

90.7 
82.1 

68.0 
57.0 

08.1 
52.2 

50.8 
36.9 

03.6 
51.4 

64.3 

.    42.8 

51.8 
41.4 

32.2 
26.0 

23.8 
17.4 

37.6 
27.7 

4.8 
3.1 

7.1 
3.9 

20.8 
13.6 

23.5 
15.8 

05.4 
60.7 

03.3 
51.9 

94.7 
91.3 

0.4 
0.9 

0.8 
1.6 

18.0 
23.1 

4.4 
6.3 

4.4 
5.3 

0.7 
7.9 

3.9 

6.6 

0.0 
1.3 

4.1 
4.9 

2.7 
4.4 

2.5 

4.8 

0.7 
0.7 

1.5 
3.0 

0.1 
0.2 

5.7 
5.3 

0.3 
1.4 

2.3 
3.4 

0.1 

82.7 
7a  8 

7&4 
75.2 

64.3 
60.4 

63.8 
55.9 

50.6 
42.4 

67.9 
61.7 

61.1 
47.2 

47.3 
43.0 

44.1 
41.0 

36.4 
30.6 

46.6 
42.5 

13.6 
11.0 

16.0 
13.1 

31.3 
26.1 

34.9 
1      29.2 

54.2 
I      48.0 

'      60.0 
50.8 

1     100.0 
1     100.0 

73.4 

1910 

69.9 

New  Jersey: 

1920 

77.3 

1910 

69.3 

Pennsylvania: 

1920   

45.4 

1910 

41.6 

East  North  Central. 

Ohio: 

1920 .       . 

49.2 

1910 

36.3 

Indiana: 

1920 

19.1 

1910 

14.9 

niinois: 

1920 

49.4 

1910 

44.5 

Michigan: 

1920 

37.0 

1910 .       .   .. 

23.9 

Wisconsin: 
1920 

20.8 

1910 

18.9 

West  North  Central. 

Minnesota: 

1920 

28.5 

1910 

27.5 

Iowa: 

1920 

8.2 

1910 .... 

1.6 

Missouri:  • 

1920 

30. 5 

1910 

32.0 

North  Dakota: 

1920 

1910 

South  Dakota: 

1920 

1910 

Nebraska: 

1920 .   . 

10.1 

1910 

14.4 

KaiLsas: 

1920 

7.4 

1910 

0.3 

South  Atlantic. 

Delaware: 

1920 

61.6 

1910 

Maryland: 

1920 

1910 

District  of  Columbia: 

1920 

1910 

60.0 
55.9 

100.0 
100.0 

'  Relates  to  calendar  year  preceding  census  year. 

2  The  term  "adjacent  territory"  refers  to  the  area  lying  within  approximately  10  miles  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  the  central  city. 
'  I>csi  than  one-tenth  of  1  per  cent. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


251 


Table  63. — Urbanization'  of  Population'  in  Comparison  With  Industrial 
Development,  by  Divisons,  1920,  1910,  and  1850,  and  by  States,  1920  and 
1910— Continued. 

[See  Appendix  E.] 


DIVISION,  STATE,  AND 
CENSUS  YEAR. 

PER  CENT  OF  TOTAL  COM- 
PRISING   VALUE    OF   ag- 
ricultural  PRODUCTS, 
VALUE  ADDED  IIY  MAN- 
UFACTURF.,   AND  VALUE 
OF    PRODUCTS    OF    MIN- 
ERAL INDUSTRIES.! 

PER  CENT    OF  TOTAL  PF.R 
SONS    ENGAGED    IN    AG- 
RICULTURE,     MANUFAC- 
TURES, AND  PRODUCTION 
OF  MINERALS.' 

Per  cent 
urban 

in 
total 
popu- 
lation. 

1 

Percent 
of  pop- 
ulation 

in 

cities  of 

100,000 

and 

over 

Agricul- 
tural 
prod- 
ucts. 

Value 
added 

by 
manu- 
facture. 

Mineral 
prod- 
ucts. 

Agricul- 
ture. 

Manu- 
fac- 
tures. 

Produc- 
tion of 
minerals. 

and 
their 
adja- 
cent 
terri- 
tory.* 

South  Atlantic— Contd. 

Virginia: 

1920 

57.0 
57.7 

24.1 
31.4 

58.0 
63.1 

75.4 
75.9 

70.5 
73.0 

42.5 
42.3 

65.7 
62.9 

66.7 
67.4 

59.1 
65.4 

79.5 
79.2 

79.5 
76.7 

44.9 
47.5 

65.5 
82.5 

74.7 
79.9 

59.9 
44.4 

78.7 
71.7 

4.5.6 
70.7 

64.7 
46.9 

38.8 
38.7 

30.7 
32.6 

41.7 
36.4 

24.3 
23.5 

29.0 
25.5 

53.5 
48.5 

21.2 
33.5 

30.0 
28.0 

31.2 
24.9 

20.5 
20.8 

18.9 
20.9 

47.4 
48.9 

8.3 
7.6 

16.5 
18.0 

18.9 
16.9 

16.1 
16.7 

26.3 
7.5 

23.4 
27.6 

4.2 

3.6 

45.2 
36.0 

0.3 
0.5 

0.2 
0.6 

0.5 
0.9 

4.0 
9.2 

13.1 
3.6 

3.3 

4.7 

9.7 
9.7 

65.3 
71.6 

36.8 
50.9 

72.5 
81.5 

82.7 

86.4 

80.7 
85.5 

5.5.3 

02.4 

74.8 
81.5 

75.4 
81.3 

76.2 

85.2 

88.5 
92.2 

86.6 

88.9 

70.2 
79.2 

79.8 
91.1 

1      S3. 7 
91.0 

68.2 
60.1 

77.9 
80.0 

1      58.2 
66.6 

60.9 
58.0 

31.2 

24.8 

29.0 
22.7 

27.1 
18.1 

17.1 
13.2 

18.9 
14.0 

42.8 
34.5 

16.0 
14.3 

21.6 
15.4 

18.5 
10.6 

11.5 

7.8 

12.5 
9.9 

28.3 
20.5 

9.8 
4.7 

13.9 
8.3 

17.3 
15.4 

18.9 
14.3 

18.4 
9.2 

27.6 
23.5 

3.5 
3.6 

34.2 

26.4 

0.3 
0.4 

0.2 
0.4 

0.3 
0.5 

1.9 
3.1 

9.2 
4.2 

2.9 
3.3 

5.3 
4.2 

29.2 
23.1 

25.2 

18.7 

19.2 
14.4 

17.5 
14.8 

25.1 
20.0 

36.7 
29.1 

26.2 
24.3 

26.1 
20.2 

21.7 
17.3 

13.4 
11.5 

16.6 
!      12.9 

i      34.9 
;      30.0 
i 

1      26.6 
19.3 

32.4 
24.1 

i 

31.3 
35.5 

i      27.6 
i      21.5 

29.5 
1      29.6 

j      48.2 
I      50.7 

24.1 

1910 

10.0 

West  Virginia: 
1920 

1910 

North  Carolina: 

1920 

1910 

South  Carolina: 

1920 

1910 

Georgia: 

1920 

9.G 

1910 

8.0 

Florida: 

1920 

1910 

East  South  Central. 

Kentucky: 

1920 

17.5 

1910 

15.5 

Tennessee: 

1920 

15.9 

1910 

14.5 

Alabama: 

1920 

!        12.4 

1910 

9.9 

Mississippi: 
1920 

0.3 

1910 

0.2 

West  South  Central. 

Arkansas: 

1920 

1910 

Louisiana: 

1920 

1.6 
2.4 

7.  7 
3.6 

26.2 
9.9 

8.8 
2.0 

21.2 
38.6 

5.2 
11.6 

28.1 
21.8 

11.9 
25.5 

0.9 
1.3 

1.5 
0.3 

10.4 
4.1 

2.4 
0.7 

14.5 
24.5 

3.2 
5.7 

23.4 
24.3 

11.4 
18.5 

0.4 
0.4 

23.3 

22.2 

Oklahoma: 

1920 

1910 

Texas: 

1920 

14.6 

1910 

Mountain. 
1920 

Idaho: 

1920 

1910 

Vi  yoming: 

1920 

Colorado: 

1920 

30.8 

1910 

30.0 

'Kelates  to  calendar  year  preceding  census  year.  .,      ,  ,    . 

2  The  term  "adjacent  territory"  refers  to  the  area  lying  within  approximately  10  miles  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  the  central  citv. 


252 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:   1910-1920. 


Table   63.— Urbanization   of   Population   in   Comparison   With   Industrial 

Development,  by  Divisions,  1920,  1910,  and  1850,  and  by  States,  1920  and 

1910— Continued. 

[See  Appendix  E.) 


DrVTSION,  STATE,  AND 
CENSUS  YEAE. 

PER  cent  of  total  COM- 
PRISING  V.VLUE    OF    AG- 
RICULTURAL    PRODUCTS, 
VALUE  ADDED  BY  MAN- 
UFACTURE,   AND   VALUE 
OF    PRODUCTS    OF    MIN- 
ERAL INDUSTRIES.  I 

PER  CENT  OF  TOTAL  PER- 
SONS   ENGAGED    IN    AG- 
RICULTURE,     MANUFAC- 
TURES, AND  PRODUCTION 
OF  MINERALS.! 

Percent 
urban 

in 
total 
popu- 
lation. 

Percent 
of  pop- 
ulation 

in 

citiesof 

100,000 

and 

over 

Agricul- 
tural 
prod- 
ucts. 

Value 
added 

by 
manu- 
facture. 

Mineral 
prod- 
ucts. 

Agricul- 
ture. 

Manu- 
fac- 
tures. 

Produc- 
tion of 
minerals. 

and 
their 
adja- 
cent 
ferri- 
torj-.i 

Mountain — Continued . 

New  Mexico: 

1920 

72.1 
70.6 

33.9 
20.4 

49.7 
41.6 

51.9 
32.1 

43.7 
46.8 

55.6 

63.8 

45.1 
44.9 

9.8 
13.3 

16.0 
26.1 

26.6 
28.3 

12.6 
8.9 

54.3 

48.2 

43.9 
35.2 

45.2 
42.1 

18.2 
16.0 

50.2 
53.5 

23.6 
30.1 

35.5 
59.0 

2.0 
4.9 

0.5 
1.0 

9.7 
13.0 

79.1 
85.9 

56.6 
50.5 

55.9 
59.0 

50.1 
49.0 

39.2 
52.6 

53.3 

68.7 

44.8 
55.5 

9.7 
6.2 

16.5 

16.7 

30.1 
22.4 

21.1 
15.2 

58.7 
43.3 

46.1 
30.2 

51.4 
37.3 

11.1 
7.9 

26.9 
32.8 

14.0 
18.6 

28.8 
35.8 

2.1 

4.1 

0.6 
1.1 

3.8 

7.2 

18.0 
14.2 

35.2 
31.0 

48.0 
46.3 

19.7 
16.3 

55.2 
53.0 

49.9 
45.6 

68.0 
61.8 

1910 

Arizona: 

1920 

1910    

Utah: 

1920                         

1        33.4 

1910 

1 

Nevada: 

1920 

1 

1910 

1 

Pacific. 

Washington: 

1920 

i        39.2 

1910 

!        36.1 

Oregon: 

1920 

'        39.3 

1910 

i        36.4 

California: 

1920 

52.0 

1910 

4S.S 

»  Relates  to  calpndar  vear  preceding  census  year.  ,      „      .,      ,  .    , 

i  The  term  "adjacent  territory"  refers  to  the  area  lying  within  approximately  10  miles  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  the  central  city. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


253 


Table  64;. — Increase  in  Population  in  Comparison  with  Increase  in  Industrial 

Activity:  1910-1920. 
[See  Appenduc  E.] 


PER   CENT  which  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  (  — )  IN  DIVLSION  OR  STATE 
FORMED  OF  TOTAL  INCREASE  OR  DECREASE  IN  UNITED  STATES. 

DrVISION  AND  STATE. 

In  popu- 
lation. 

In  value 
of  agri- 
cultural 
products. 

In  value 
added 

by 
manu- 
facture. 

In  value 

of 
mineral 
products. 

In 
persons 
engaged 
in  agri- 
culture. 

In 
persons 
employed 
in  manu- 
facturing 
indus- 
tries. 

In 

persons 

em- 
ployed 
in  pro- 
duction 
of  min- 
erals. 

United  St.^tes 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

Geographic  divisions: 

New  England 

6.2 
21.4 
23.5 

6.6 
13.1 

3.5 
10.6 

5.1 
10.0 

1.9 
6.6 
19.9 
24.9 

12.8 
7.9 

14.5 
4.7 
6.8 

12.3 
33.0 
29.9 
5.1 

7.7 
2.2 
2.9 
1.1 
5.7 

0.1 
2.5.2 
12.7 

7.S 
12.8 

6.9 
23.1 

6.1 

5.4 

-3.1 

-8.6 

-12.7 

-8.2 

-25. 9 

-25.5 

-16.1 

5.5.2 

44.8 

10.3 
27.9 
35.0 

5.6 
5.9 
2.5 
3.2 
1.4 
8.3 

8  0 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central..  . 

15  6 

West  North  Central 

-18.8 
20  6 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central 

27  8 

West  South  Central 

51  5 

Mountain 

7  5 

Pacific 

5  4 

New  England: 

Maine 

0.2 
0.1 
-24.3 
3.5 
0.4 
1.9 

9.2 
4.5 
7.7 

7.2 
1.7 
6.2 
6.2 
2.2 

2.3 
1.3 
0.8 
0.5 
0.4 
0.8 
0.6 

0.2 
1.1 
0.8 
1.8 
1.8 
2.6 
1.2 
2.1 
1.6 

0.9 

1.1 

1.5 

-44.8 

1.3 
1.0 
2.7 
5.6 

1.3 

0.8 
0.4 
1.0 
0.2 
0.9 
0.6 
-30.8 

1.6 
0.8 

7.6 

0.7 
0.2 
0.4 
0.3 
(') 
0.3 

3.0 
0.5 
3.1 

4.3 
3.4 
5.5 
2.7 
4.0 

3.6 
6.7 
4.1 
1.3 
1.8 
3.6 
3.9 

0.1 
0.7 
0) 
2.0 
0.7 
3.3 
2.6 
2.9 
0.4 

2.2 
2.3 

1.6 
1.8 

2.1 
1.1 
3.9 
7.4 

0.6 
1.0 
0.3 
1.5 
0.4 
0.4 
0.4 
0.1 

1.5 
1.0 
4.3 

0.7 
0.6 
0.2 
6.6 
1.3 
2.9 

14.6 
5.9 
12.5 

9.5 
2.9 
7.1 
7.4 
2.9 

1.3 
0.8 
1.9 
(■) 
0.1 
0.4 
0.6 

0.3 
1.3 
0.1 
1.1 
0.8 
1.9 
0.6 
1.0 
0.4 

0.3 
0.8 
0.8 
0.3 

0.3 
0.9 
0.4 

1.2 

0.1 
0.1 
0.2 
0.3 

(■) 
0.1 
0.2 

0) 

1.6 
0.7 
3.4 

-2.0 
(') 

0) 

(') 

0) 
0) 

0.6 
(') 
24.3 

3.7 
1.6 
5.3 
1.9 
0.2 

3.7 
0.2 
0.1 
0.1 
-9.4 
-0.2 
3.7 

-2.3 

0.2 
(') 

1.1 
11.4 

0.1 
(') 

0.1 
0) 

4.5 
0.5 
1.8 
(') 

0.2 
»1.7 
13.3 

7.7 

-42.5 
0.2 
1.6 
0.3 
0.7 
2.8 
1.0 

-43.7 

0.1 
(') 
5.2 

-0.6 
-0.5 
-0.4 
-0.8 
-0.2 
-0.5 

-3.5 
-0.9 
-4.0 

-3.2 
-2.7 
-3.7 
-2.7 
-0.2 

9.8 
-1.5 
-3.3 
-O.G 
-0.4 
-0.8 
-2.2 

-0.3 
-1.0 
C-) 

-3.1 
-2.2 
-7.2 
-5.0 
-6.3 
-0.5 

-3.3 
-3.7 

-8.8 
-9.3 

-3.4 
-3.0 
-1.9 
-7.5 

20.2 
8.5 
0.6 

10.3 

-0.  6 

9.8 

4.2 

(=) 

2.2 

(') 
34.5 

0.3 
0.2 
(') 
5.4 
1.1 
3.3 

10.3 
7.4 
10.3 

11.5 
3.6 
7.8 
8.9 
3.3 

1.4 
0.9 
1.9 
0.1 
0.1 
0.5 
0.7 

0.3 
1.3 
0.1 
0.6 
0.7 
1.3 
0.3 
0.7 
0.6 

0.2 
O.S 
1.2 
0.2 

0.2 
0.8 
0.6 
1.5 

0.2 
0.2 
0.1 
0.3 
0.1 
0.1 
0.3 
(') 

2.2 
1.1 
5.0 

1  0 

New  Hampshire 

0.5 

Vermont 

3  4 

Massachusetts 

1  1 

Rhode  I.sland 

0  2 

Connecticut 

0.7 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

3.8 

New  Jersey 

1.3 

Pennsvlvania 

33.4 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 

3  7 

Indiana 

1  5 

lUinois 

1  3 

Michigan 

5  4 

Wisconsin 

—1.6 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 

0  6 

Iowa 

4  7 

Missouri 

9  7 

North  Dakota 

''\, 

South  Dakota 

Nebra.ska 

-0.2 

Kansas 

0.5 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

—0.3 

Maryland 

1  3 

District  of  Columbia 

1.2 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

2tj.2 

North  Carolina 

0.6 

South  Carolina 

-0.6 

Georgia 

-1.0 

Florida 

1.3 

East  South  Central: 
Kentucky 

23.3 

Tennessee 

-2.1 

1.9 

Mississippi 

1.6 

West  South  Central: 
Arkansas 

Loui.siana 

»  4.7 

23.8 

Texas 

14.5 

Mountain: 

Montana 

-2.7 

Idaho 

-0.7 

Wyoming 

1.2 

Colorado 

-5.0 

New  Mexico 

1.4 

Arizona 

2.6 

Utah 

—0.6 

Nevada 

-0.8 

Pacific: 

Washington 

—1.4 

Oregon 

-0.3 

California 

-3.0 

'  Less  than  one-tenth  of  1  per  cent  increase. 
2  Less  than  one-tenth  of  1  per  cent  decrease. 


•  Mississippi  included  with  Louisiana. 


254 


INCREASE  OF  POPULATION:    1910-1920. 


Table  65.— Areas  Other  Than  States  Enumerated  at  Each  Ceksus: 

1790-1920. 

[At  some  of  the  early  censuses  the  eaameration  did  not  cover  the  entire  areas  of  certain  territories.    The 
references  to  areas  included  apply  only  to  those  covered  by  the  enumeration.] 


CENSUS 
YEAR. 

1 
Nonstate  areas  enumerated . 

CENSUS 
YEAR. 

Nonstate  areas  enumerated. 

17901 

Vermont  (independent  republic). 

1860 

Nebraska  territorv.  including  part  of 

Territory  south  of  River  Ohio,  includ- 

(Contd.) 

present  area  of  Wyoming. 

ing  present  area  of  Tennessee. 

Kansas  territory. 

Colorado  territory  (organized  in  1861). 

1S<X)> 

District  of  Columbia. 

Nevada  territory  (organized  in  1J«1), 

Indiana  territory,  comprising  present 

comprising  part  of  present  area  of 

area  of  Indiana,  Illinois,  W  isconsin, 

state. 

and  part  of  Michigan. 
Part  of  Territorv  Northwest  of  Ohio 

1870 

District  of  Columbia. 

River,  now  Ohio  and  part  of  Mich- 

Utah tenitory. 

igan,  remaining  after  organization 

New  Mexico  territory. 

of  Indiana  territory. 

Arizona  territory-. 

Mississippi    territory,  now  southern 
Mississippi  and  Alabama.                  , 

Washington  territory. 

Idaho  territory. 

Montana  territory. 

1810  « 

District  of  Columbia. 

Wyoming  territory. 

Indiana  territory,  comprising  present 

Dakota  territory,  comprising  present 

area  of  Indiana  and  part  of  lUinois. 

area  of  North  and  SoiiUi  Dakota. 

Illinois  territory,  comprising  part  of 

Colorado  territory. 

present  area  of  Illinois  and  present 

area  of  Wisconsin. 

1880 

District  of  Columbia. 

Michigan  territorj'. 

Utah  territory. 

Mississippi  territory,  comprisiiig  pres- 

New Mexico  territory. 

ent  area  of  Mississippi  and  Alabama. 

Arizona  territory. 

Part  of  Louisiana  territory,  now  Mis- 

Washington  territory. 

soin"i  and  Arkansas. 

Idaho  territory. 

Orleans  territory,  now  part  of  Louis- 

Montana territory. 

iana. 

Wyoming  territory. 

Da'kota  territory',  comprising  present 

1820 

District  of  Columbia. 

area  of  North  and  South  Dakota. 

Miciiigan  territory,  including  present 

:    Alaska  territory. 

area  of  Wisconsm. 

1 

Missouri  territorj'. 

1890 District  of  Columbia. 

Arkansas  territory. 

Utah  territory. 

New  Mexico  tcrritorj-. 

1830 

District  of  Columbia . 

Arizona  territory. 

Michigan  territory',  including  present 
area  of  Wisconsin. 

Oklahoma  territory  and  Indian  Terri- 
tory (combined  in  1907  to  form  state 

Arkansas  territory. 

of  Oklahoma). 

Florida  territory. 

Alaska  territory. 

1840 

District  of  Columbia. 

1900 1    District  of  Columbia. 

Florida  territory. 

1    New  Mexico  territory. 

Wisconsin  territory,  including  small 

1    Arizona  territory. 

part  of  present  area  of  ilinnesota. 
Iowa  territory,  including  greater  part 

Oklahoma  territory  and  Indian  Terri- 

torv (combined  in  1907  to  form  state 

of  present  area  of  Minnesota. 

of  Oklahoma). 
Alaska  territory. 

1850 

District  of  Columbia. 

1    Hawaii  territory. 

Minnesota  territory. 
Utah  territory. 

1910 

District  of  Columbia. 

New  Mexico  territory. 

New  Mexico  territory. 

Oregon  territory,   including  present 

Arizona  territory. 

t 

area  of  Washington. 

Alaska  territory. 
Hawaii  territory. 
Porto  Rico  territory. 

1860 

District  of  Columbia. 

Utah  territory. 

1920 

District  of  Cohunbia. 

New  Mexico  territory,  including  pres- 

Alaska territory. 

ent  area  of  Arizona. 

Hawaii  territory. 

Washington  territory,  including  pres- 

Porto Rito  territory. 

ent  area  of  Idaho  and  parts  of  Mon- 

Guam. 

tana  and  WyoniinR. 

American  Samoa. 

Dakota  territory  (organized  in  IhGl), 

Panama  Canal  Zone. 

comprising  present  area  of  North 

and  South  Dakota  and  parts  of  Mon- 

tana and  Wyoming. 

1  Maine,  although  a  part  of  Massachusetts,  and  Kentucky,  although  a  part  of  Virginia,  shown  separately 
In  census  rer)oris. 

2  Maine,  although  a  part  of  Massachusetts,  shown  separately  in  cen.sus  reports. 


DETAILED  TABLES. 


255 


Table  66. — Elements  op  Population  Estimated  by  Different  Methods: 

1900  and  1920. 


WHITE  population:  1900 

ELEMENT. 

FIRST 

computation: 

Elimination  of 

foreign  stock 

from  native 

element. 

SECOND 

computation: 

Growth  of  native 
stock  estimated 
on  basis  of  rate 
of  increase  for 
Southern  states.' 

third 
computation: 

Growth  of  native 

stock  measured 

by  proportion  of 

persons  in 

Massachusetts 

having  native 

grandfathers. 

Average. 

Total  white 

66,809,196 

66,809,196 

66,809,196 

66,809,196 

Native  element' 

43, 495, 762 
37,290,000 
6,210,000 

23, 313, 434 

29,520,000 

43,495,762 

35,640,000 

7,&50,000 

23,313,434 

31,160,000 

43,495,762 
33,730,000 
9,770,000 

23,313,434 

33,080,000 

43,495,762 

35, 550, 000 

7,940,000 

23,313,434 

31,250,000 

Native  stock 

Foreii^n  stock 

Foreign  element  3 

Total  foreign  stock ' 

WHITE  population:  1920 

ELEMENT. 

FIRST 

computation: 

Elimination  of 

foreign  stock 

from  native 

element. 

second 
computation: 

Growth  of  native 
stock  estimated 
on  basis  of  rate 
of  increase  for 
Southern  states.' 

Average. 

Total  white 

94,820,915 

94,820,915 

94  820  915 

Native  element^ 

61,960,586 
47,  .330,000 
14,630,000 

32,860,329 

47, 490, 000 

01,960,586 
46,250,000 
15, 710, 000 

32,860,329 

48,570,000 

Native  stock 

46,790,000 
15  170  000 

Foreign  stock 

Foreign  element  3 

32  860  329 

Total  foreign  stock  * 

48,030,000 

1  In  making  the  estimate  by  this  method  it  was  assumed  that  the  rate  of  natural  increase  of  the  native 
white  stock  prior  to  ks70  was  the  same  for  the  country  as  a  whole  as  for  the  Southern  states,  and  th.ir 
sabsequently  to  ls70  the  rate  for  the  remainder  of  the  country  was  equal  to  one-half  that  for  the  Sou;h. 

-  All  whites  of  native  parentage  plus  one-half  of  all  whites  of  mixed  parentage. 

'  .Vll  whites  of  foreign  parentage  ]ilus  one-half  of  ail  whites  of  mixed  parentage. 

*  Foreign  element  plus  foreign  stock  in  native  element. 

Table  67. — Years  of  Admission  of  St.\tes  to   U.vion. 


state. 

Year  of 
admission. 

state. 

Year  of 
admission. 

state. 

Year  of 
admis- 
sion. 

Alabama 

1819        ' 
1912        i 
1836 

is.:o 

1876 

('I 

(•) 
1845 

(') 
1890 

1818        1 
1816 
1846 
1861 
1792 
1812 

1820 
(') 
(') 
1837 
1858 
1817 
1821 
1889 
1867 
1864 
(') 
(■) 
1912 
(') 
(') 
1889 

Ohio 

1803 

Arizona 

Maryland.. 

1907 

-Vrkansas 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

1S59 

California 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode  Island 

South  Carolina 

South  Dakota 

(') 
(') 
1889 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Missouri 

Florida 

1795 

Oeorgia 

Nebraska 

Texas 

1845 

Idaho 

Utah 

1898 

Illinois 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

1791 

Indiana 

Virginia 

(I) 

Iowa 

1889 

Kansas 

New  York 

North  Carolina 

North  Dakota 

West  Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

1853 

184S 

Louisiana 

1R90 

'  One  of  the  Original  Thirteen  States. 


ADDITIONAL  COPIES 

OF  THIS  PtJBUCATlON  MAT  BE  PROCURED  FROM 

THE  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  DOCUMENTS 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

AT 

$1.00  PER  COPY 

V 


14  DAY  USE 

'  RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

EARTH  SCIENCES  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

^i££j2-^Meee" 

1 

1 

i 

T  r.  oi    Ar,„.  r.  •f\r.                                    General  Library 
/i^I^n^X\l7R                            University  of  California 
(P43088l0)476                                            Berkeley 

K 


,<  I. 

i.i! 


.'.'lil 


'M).|:: 


i'i';.'n; 


;.ij. 


I  '  '  I  .  ,  ,  '  i  ;  r. 


a!  1 


)') 


I         '■       Hi"     ' /if     ■     ('l -U 


,>^^'.■!;i'!J•i;'' 


t     '    i.1 


•i! 


^l/'    Mm 


l:« 


,      ••i.'i-u-.ii: 


/.III 


.M 


'  • 


[v.\ 


I  MM' 


,1;,  'I'V  "ii  l-'lfl 


